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
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007