Appeal No. 2001-0193 Page 3
Application No. 09/182,138
The appellants’ invention is directed to a sign mechanism of the type in which
multiple prisms are rotated together to show three different displays. As explained in the
specification, the appellants have provided a system for rotating the sign members through
successive turns in which the speed of motion is varied so that it gradually increases from
the fully stopped condition to reach a maximum velocity during the changing of the display
surfaces, and then gradually decreases as it approaches the position corresponding to the
new display. This avoids the shock of abrupt starts and stops and minimizes wear on
components (specification, page 4). It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter
recited in this claim is taught by Ahlgren, except that Ahlgren utilizes belt and gear drive
whereas the claim requires a cam and follower drive. However, it is the examiner’s
position that the claimed drive system is disclosed by Pessina, and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ahlgren mechanism by replacing the
chain system with the system of Pessina.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007