Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
Considering now the rejection of claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 18
and 19 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of Taylor, it
is the examiner's position that:
The reference to Murray discloses a triangular
shaped picture holder having a slot for receiving
the edge of the picture to be supported and a pin 15
for securing the holder on a supporting surface.
The reference to Taylor discloses a plastic holder
(column 2, lines 61, 62) for a display sheet having
a magnetic strip 13 adhesively secured . . . to the
rear surface for the purpose of attaching the holder
and display sheet to a ferrous surface such [as a]
metal . . . backed chalkboard or a refrigerator
door. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have substituted in Murray for his securing means
15 a magnetic strip adhering means as taught by
Taylor at 13 [in order] to achieve Taylor's
expressly stated advantage of ease of securement to
a ferrous surface such as metal backed chalkboard or
refrigerator door.
The material from which a device is made, its
dimension as well as the method of making are
considered as obvious matters of engineering choice.
Note that Murray recites that the device can be made
of any suitable materials and of any dimension
(lines 54, 55, and 66, 67). As to [the] specific
shape of the magnets this is considered to be the
work of a skillful mechanics [sic, mechanic];
further no advantage but for aesthetic [purposes] is
seen in making the magnets elongated, triangular,
square, etc. [Answer, pages 4 and 5.]
It is the appellants' contention that there is no
suggestion to combine the teachings of Murray and Taylor in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007