Appeal No. 1998-0045
Application 08/699,135
We are in agreement with appellant's argument that
the examiner has misinterpreted the teaching of Sy, Jr.
Appellant argues that the teaching of the Sy, Jr. reference is
to mount the card by a suction cup. There is no teaching in
the prior art taken as a whole of using the suction cup to
releasably connect the ornament to the card.
We further credit appellant's argument that
Transport's staple is not intended to do double duty by first
affixing the ornament to the card and then affixing the
ornament to the suction cup of Sy, Jr. when the teachings of
the patents are combined. We can only conclude that the
suggestion for using a releasable connection between the
ornament and the suction cup to temporarily mount the
ornament on the suction cup and card for mailing finds its
genesis in impermissible hindsight recon- struction of
appellant's claimed subject matter. As such, it cannot
provide a legitimate basis for a prima facie case of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007