Appeal No. 1998-1930 Page 7
Application No. 08/517,183
Evers depicts an ornamental design for a rod measurer and
weigher. As shown in Figures 1-6, the rod measurer and4
weigher includes a simulation of a fish.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that
[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the mark or design on the wrapper or cylindrical
body of Muk Kim such that it represents the torso of a
selected species of fish in view of Evers in order to
provide both a pleasing ornamental design which is
realistic and an indicator as to what species of fish the
rod is intended to be used in catching.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6 and 10) that the
applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter.
We agree. In our view, the above-noted determination of the
examiner has not been supported by any evidence that would
have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention. In
our opinion, the only suggestion for modifying Muk Kim in the
manner proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
4In our view, Evers does not disclose a fishing rod (see
page 5 of the brief) or a fishing body (see pages 4-5 of the
answer).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007