Appeal No. 1998-3421
Application No. 08/646,995
redistribution to the clothing manufacturers~ (answer,
page 5).
Finally, the examiner concludes on page 5 of the
answer that it would have been obvious to ćutomate the
[size indicia] removal process . . .~ In support of this
position the examiner relies on In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91,
95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)2 (citing In re Rundell,
48 F.2d 958, 959, 9 USPQ 220, 221 (CCPA 1931)) for the
holding that īt is not īnvention~ to broadly provide a
mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity
which has accomplished the same result.~
We agree that it would have been obvious to substitute
Marshall's plastic hangers with the size indicia thereon
for the plastic hangers disclosed in the WMRR publication
for the reasons stated by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the
answer. However, there is nothing in the applied
references, taken singly or collectively, that would have
suggested the claimed step of removing the size indicia at
the reuse center in the WMRR publication. In reusing
2 See also MPEP ~ 2144.04 (7th ed. Rev. 1, Feb. 2000).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007