Appeal No. 98-1047
Application 08/612,814
Thomas device has little, if any, relevance to the Scatterday
grip and would not have furnished the artisan with any
suggestion or motivation to provide the grip with calendar or
any other type of indicia. This deficiency in the examiner's
reference evidence finds no cure in the officially noticed
general knowledge that balls and balloons may bear indicia.
We are therefore left to conclude that the examiner has
engaged in an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
appellant's invention by using the appealed claims as a
template to selectively piece together isolated disclosures in
the prior
art. This being the case, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 8 or of claims 3
through 5, 7 and 9 through 14 which depend therefrom.2
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
2Claims 5 and 7 are duplicates, a circumstance which
should be handled in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §
706.03(k) upon return of the application to the examiner.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007