Appeal No. 1999-0931
Application 08/772,861
being worked on, a known advantage of transparent materials,
as recognized by Fischer (column 2, lines 40 through 43).
Thus, the content of claims 3 and 4 is seen to be fairly
suggested by the combined teachings of the applied references.
As to claims 5, 6, and 7, we are of the opinion that an
artisan would have found it obvious to selectively provide
indicia of some form (printed or integrally molded) on either
the top or bottom of a transparent plastic material member.
It is also our view that the selection of an appropriate
attachment means (adhesive or nuts and bolts, for example) for
the handle (claim 8) would have been an obvious matter of
ordinary design choice. As to the aforementioned selection
and positioning of indicia and the choice of attachment means,
and considering the present application (specification, pages
7 and 9), these matters are appropriately viewed as obvious
design choices since they have not been disclosed as, in and
of themselves, solving any particular problems or yielding any
unexpected results.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
rejection of claims 1, 3 through 11, and 13 through 20 under
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007