Appeal No. 1999-1039
Application No. 08/876,762
well known in the art of camouflaging,” and to replace the
mechanical drive means with powered means, on the basis of
routine skill in the art. In the Brief, the appellant argues
that the examiner has failed to provide evidence that it would
have been obvious to modify the Nilsson canvas cover to meet
the terms of the claims, particularly in view of the specific
problem to which the invention is directed, that is, providing
a structure that can be quickly erected from a collapsed
position to camouflage a location. The appellant additionally
asserts that the Nilsson device is not capable of being raised
and lowered repeatedly and successively with the fabric cover
placed over the frame.
It is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in independent
claims 1 and 11, essentially for the reasons pointed out by
the appellant. Nilsson’s disclosure is devoid of any teaching
regarding the color of the outside of the cover, much less
that the structure be used for camouflage. When challenged by
the appellant to produce evidence in support of the conclusion
that it would have been obvious to imbue the Nilsson cover
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007