Appeal No. 98-0361 Application 08/394,725 Given the substantial differences between the rim/bill constructions disclosed by the two references, it is not evident how or why Simon's teaching of ornamentation having first and second parts which fully conform to or follow the contour of the crown and rim/bill, respectively, such that the second part is a unitary continuation of the first part would have suggested modifying the Kellin hat so as to arrive at the headwear piece recited in claims 1 and 9. In this regard, neither reference discloses ornamentation having the three- dimensional visual effect required by the claims. In this light, it is apparent that the examiner has engaged in an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the invention set forth in claims 1 and 9 by using these claims as a blueprint to selectively pick and choose from among isolated elements in the prior art. Rife, applied to support the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13, does not cure this fundamental flaw in the Kellin-Simon combination. Thus, the prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and in claims 2 through 8 and 10 through 24 which 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007