Appeal No. 1997-2781 Page 4
Application No. 08/422,348
since appellants have declared their intention to cancel these
claim, we herewith dismiss the appeal as to claims 13 and 17.
Thus, the only issues remaining for our review involve the §
103 rejections of claims 1 through 12, 14 through 16 and 18.
With regard to the § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 4,
7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16 and 18, the examiner’s position
is as follows:
McDonald discloses a flexible screen 18,19
supported by a frame, and a protective cover 10
disposed proximate to and in overlapping relation
with the flexible screen 18,19. While McDonald does
not disclose the cover as comprising a plurality of
air holes, Stevens discloses a cover comprising air
holes 53,57, wherein, to incorporate this teaching
into the cover of McDonald for the purpose of
providing ventilation would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. [Answer, page 4.]
We are unable to sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1
through 4, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16 and 18. It is well
established patent law that the prior art must provide one of
ordinary skill in the art with the motivation for making the
modification needed to arrive at the claimed invention. In re
Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007