Appeal No. 1999-1044
Application No. 08/778,392
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972).
The rejection of claims 1, 12 and 14 is based on the
examiner's determination (answer, p. 3) that Neuendorf "shows
the basic structure of the claimed sign holder . . . , but
does not show sign portion 17 to comprise a hollow housing."
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 4) that it would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art to have substituted Schmanski's housing for the
sign 17 of Neuendorf in order to facilitate sign changing as
taught by Schmanski.1
The appellant argues that the prior art as applied does
not arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, the
appellant argues (brief, pp. 3-6) that neither Schmanski nor
Neuendorf teaches or suggests a hollow sign housing having an
open end for sign insertion when the sign is fully assembled
and ready for use or a rotatable sign support as required by
independent claim 1.
1The specific teachings of Neuendorf and Schmanski relied
upon by the examiner are set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the
answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007