Appeal No. 96-1555
Application 08/229,619
Since [the] kaleidoscope of Coates has a triangular base
and a viewing screen through a side of the kaleidoscope,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to orient the sides of the kaleidoscope of Coates
to present a three sided shape having an angle less than
90 [degrees] with respect to [the] base, divisible into
360 an odd or even number of times with respect to each
other. It also would have been obvious to use one way
mirrors as taught by Akins for any of the sides of [the]
kaleidoscope of Coates to create different kaleidoscopic
images since it has been held that rearranging the
mirrors (shapes and angles of mirrors) with respect to
each other or the display surface involves only routine
skill in the art and the claimed difference merely
amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan
of ordinary skill as design choices.
We agree with Appellant's arguments (Br11-12) that
nothing in Coates suggests, expressly or implicitly, the
modifications proposed by the Examiner. The prism in Coates
is intended to present a planar image for viewing designs and
does not hint at modifying the prism to provide a
three-dimensional image. The sides of the prism, which form
the mirror surfaces, and the junctions between the sides are
perpendicular to the base as they must be to provide a planar
image. Nothing in Coates suggests: (1) modifying the shape of
the sides to be triangular with a base and two equal-length
sides; (2) making the angle of the image axis at the junction
of the sides less than 90E with respect to the base surface;
or (3) inclining the sides at less than 90E with respect to
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007