Appeal No. 1998-2240 Page 9
Application No. 08/443,058
removable” from the underlying globe. In addition, we fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led the artisan to utilize adhesive having such
properties as to allow the sheet to be “readily removable”
from the globe in the Wigal device, other than that which is
obtained through the hindsight afforded one who first viewed
the appellant’s disclosure. Consideration of the teachings4
of Duke fails to alleviate this shortcoming.
For the reasons expressed above, it is our conclusion
that the teachings of the applied references fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 13, and we therefore will
not sustain the rejection of these claims or claims 5, 7, 8,
10-12 and 14-18, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
4The mere fact that the prior art structure could be
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007