Appeal No. 96-0405
Application No. 08/178,668
This panel of the board does not discern, from a
collective evaluation of the disclosures of Anderson and Kent,
Jr., that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated, in the absence of appellant’s own teachings, to
modify the Anderson window display form, as proposed by the
examiner. Simply stated, the conversion of the Anderson
window display form, as proposed by the examiner, to in effect
produce a three panel configuration with relative panel widths
as taught by Kent, Jr. would clearly have defeated a primary
objective of Anderson, i.e., the provision of a display form
which may be bent and configured into all sorts of positions
and forms in order to give different effects. Thus, the
evidence of obviousness alone would not have been suggestive
of the now claimed invention.
Since the applied evidence does not establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, we need not address appellant’s
evidence of nonobviousness.
New Ground of Rejection
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this panel of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007