Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
three pieces is found only in claims 7, 15 and 22. Even with
respect to these claims, however, we observe that independent
claim 1 of Tannenbaum is directly readable on the embodiment
of Figs. 1-3 and has dependent thereon (a) claim 4 which
recites that the securing or attaching means is "tacky
synthetic material" and (b) claim 5 which recites that the
securing or attaching means is a "magnet." Accordingly,
claims 1, 4 and 5 of Tannenbaum, taken as a whole, would
fairly suggest to the artisan that either (a) an adhesive
securing or attaching means or (b) a magnetic securing or
attaching means may be used with the embodiment of Figs. 1-3.
The appellants contend that there is no suggestion in
Murray of a triangularly-shaped magnetic securing means, but
do not specifically address the above-noted position of the
examiner that the "specific shape of the magnets . . . 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." In any event, we are of the opinion that one of
ordinary skill in this art, when providing Murray's holder
with a magnetic securing means in accordance with the
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007