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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007