Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 13
Application No. 08/602,274
Dependent claim 3 adds to parent claim 2 the limitation 3
that a slotted tab extends from the display area and beyond
the ridge structure.
The examiner stated (answer, p. 4) that "the use of a
'slotted tab' instead of a hook is considered an obvious
substitution if desired."
The appellants argue (brief, p. 12) that the examiner's
position is not supported by any prior art teaching. We
agree. In that regard, the examiner has not provided any
evidence that establishes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to replace Ross' hook with a slotted tab. The mere
existence of a slotted tab does not, in and of itself,
establish the obviousness of the proposed substitution. Thus,
the examiner has not established a proper factual basis to
support the rejection of claim 3. Accordingly, the decision
3Claim 2 depends from claim 1.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007