Appeal No. 97-4083
Application 08/422,933
transparency 25 framed by the opening in the opaque plate, and a diffusion plate 27
and electric bulb 29 disposed behind the transparency for illuminating same with back-
light.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art “to utilize [Lawrence’s] cover plate in the device of Bianchi to protect the
display” (answer, page 4) and “to include [Lawrence’s] decorative frame in the device of
Bianchi to give the frame a more decorative effect” (answer, page 4).
The appellant’s position that this proposed modification of Bianchi in view of
Lawrence is based on impermissible hindsight is persuasive. The disparities between the
simulated neon sign disclosed by Bianchi and the photograph/ornamental display
disclosed by Lawrence make it evident that the particular modifications of the Bianchi sign
proposed by the examiner rest on an improper use of the appellant’s claims as a template
to selectively pick and choose from among isolated disclosures in the prior art. Green,
the third reference relied upon by the examiner, discloses a picture unit having a
transparent plastic frame whose appearance can be altered via the use of mat board
inserts. This disclosure does not cure the foregoing fundamental flaw in the basic Bianchi-
Lawrence combination.
The following new rejections are entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007