Ex parte KRONENBERGER - Page 2




          Appeal No. 98-0361                                                          
          Application 08/394,725                                                      


          of claims 1 through 24, all of the claims pending in the                    
          application.  We reverse.                                                   
               The invention relates to "headwear of the type having a                
          crown and an associated depending rim/bill and, more                        
          particularly, to a headwear piece with coordinated                          
          ornamentation on the crown and rim/bill that produces a unique              
          visual effect" (specification, page 1).  A copy of the                      
          appealed claims appears in the appendix to the appellant's                  
          main brief (Paper No. 13).                                                  
               The items relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                   
          obviousness are:                                                            
               Simon               Des.188,029              May  24, 1960             
               Rife et al. (Rife)     5,111,366             May   5, 1992             
               Kellin et al. (Kellin)  5,136,726                 Aug. 11,             
          1992                                                                        

               The item relied upon by the appellant as evidence of non-              
          obviousness is:                                                             
               The 37 CFR § 1.132 Declaration of Robert                               
               Kronenberger filed November 27, 1995 (part of Paper                    
               No. 7)                                                                 
               Claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 24 stand rejected                   
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kellin in                  
          view of Simon, and claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35                 
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007