Ex parte RASMUSSEN - Page 9

                   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.                                                                                                         
                            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.                                                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007