Appeal No. 1998-2386
Application No. 08/757,749
satisfy the “continuity” and “assist in completion of said
overall image” limitations of claim 1. The examiner’s
determination to the contrary is based on an unreasonable
interpretation of the claim language, in our view.
While not mentioned in the examiner’s explanation of the
rejection, we note that Engel does teach that the sheet [18]
also includes a drawing [66] which “may also be a picture with
portions obscured by a pattern 30 and by using viewer portion
42, the child can see the complete picture” (col. 6, lines 12-
15). However, Engel does not teach or suggest a third
portion, e.g., a sticker, which is selected and movably
associated with the obscured image portion of drawing [66].
We have also reviewed the Kawashima reference
additionally relied upon by the examiner in the rejection of
claims 1 through 8, but find nothing therein that makes up for
the deficiencies of Engel discussed above.
Since all the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claims 1
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007