Appeal No. 96-3032 Application No. 08/321,392 15 and 22, [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the mounting corner of Murray of three pieces joined together as taught by Tannenbaum [in order] to achieve Tannenbaum's self evident advantage of ease of construction. 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 5 and 6.] The appellants argue at great length that the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 of Tannenbaum only discloses an adhesive securing means and that the only embodiment of Tannenbaum which has a magnetic securing means is the embodiment of Fig. 4. We are at a complete loss, however, to understand why the appellants believe that the teachings of Tannenbaum should be limited only to the teachings of Figs. 1-3. The examiner has relied upon the embodiment of Fig. 4 for a showing of a magnetic securing means 11 which secures a photograph displaying device to the door of a refrigerator or freezer. While the examiner has relied on the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 for a teaching of a three-piece photograph displaying device having a groove for receiving the photograph, a limitation which requires the claimed photograph mounting or display device to be formed of 13Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007