Appeal No. 1998-0566
Application No. 08/396,005
Whether or not the rejection could have been made under
subsections 102(f) or 102(g) is not relevant. The language of
subsection 103(c) is clear; it applies to “[s]ubject matter
developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only
under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102" (emphasis added).
That is not the case in the situation before us, and we
therefore are unpersuaded by the appellant’s argument on this
point.
The first rejection under Section 103 posed by the
examiner is that claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable over
Kanzelberger. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 3 from
claim 2. As we stated above, it is our view that Kanzelberger
fails to disclose or teach the limitation of claim 1 regarding
the back surface of the all-plastic plate being exposed to
view. This shortcoming in the showing of Kanzelberger is not
alleviated by considering the reference in the light of
Section 103. Since claims 2 and 3 incorporate the structure
of claim 1, it therefore is our conclusion that the teachings
of Kanzelberger fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claims 2 and
3, and we will not sustain this rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007