Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
the manner proposed by the examiner. This is particularly the
case, in the appellants' view, because Murray "cannot possibly
represent a proper and sufficient basic reference" (brief,
page 18) since (1) the corners are not constructed of a
relatively thick, rigid material, (2) there is no mention
therein of magnetic material, much less triangularly-shaped
magnetic material, (3) the sole mounting means disclosed is a
stick pin 15, (4) there is no mention therein of mounting to a
ferrous surface and (5) it is improper to "endeavor to impute
a supposed purpose of the secondary reference, the Taylor
patent, into a device (Murray) that clearly is quite unable to
utilize same" (brief, page 22). It is also the appellants'
contention that "the Taylor patent teaches magnetic material
only in the configuration of an elongate strip 13 that has
been sandwiched between pieces of sheet material" (brief, page
20).
We are unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments. First,
we observe that the appellants' contentions regarding the
teachings of Taylor are simply factually incorrect. That is,
while Taylor does teach an elongate strip of magnetic material
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007