Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
simply obvious matters of design depending upon what size one
would have desired the Whorton cart to be. Appellant has not
shown that they are in any respect critical to the claimed
invention. See
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
The recitation of a "casino change" cart does not
constitute a patentable limitation, for the reasons stated
under rejection (I), supra.
In making this rejection, we have taken into account
the declaration of the inventor (see footnote 5, supra), but
do not consider it sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the combination of Whorton and
Boldt.8
8The declaration is not relevant to rejection (I), since
that rejection is based on anticipation, rather than
obviousness. In re Paulson, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 n.11, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1676 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007