Appeal No. 96-1555
Application 08/229,619
and angles relative to the base are design expedients known to
those having ordinary skill in the art, design choice is not
persuasive.
The Examiner further states (EA5):
Coates in column [sic, page] 2 teaches that by making
various changes in the details of construction many
different designs may be created. Furthermore, [the]
kaleidoscope of Coates has a triangular base and a
viewing screen with an angle less than 90E with respect
to the base. Therefore it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill to change angles between mirrors or
[the] angle between each mirror and [the] base to create
different kaleidoscope images.
Coates's teaching that various changes can be made in the
details of construction is not a teaching or suggestion of the
specific limitations of claims 1 and 36. Modifying Coates to
make the side faces 10 and 11 at an angle with respect to the
base would make the prism unsuitable for its intended purpose
of viewing planar designs. That the viewing surface 14 is at
an angle does not suggest that the side faces 10 and 11 could
be at an angle with respect to the base. The surface 14 does
not play a part in creating the image, but is required because
the device is formed by a solid transparent prism rather than
mirrors; if Coates were made with flat mirrors, only mirrors
for the side faces 10 and 11 would be required.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007