Appeal No. 1996-4148
Application No. 08/327,085
carrousel's greater effectiveness would obviate its use in
place of the polyhedrons taught by Kreitman et al.
We agree with the examiner's position that the lack of
disclosure of the carrousel format of display by Kreitman et
al. is not indicative of its nonobviousness. Simply because a
single reference does not disclose an embodiment which may be
obvious therefrom is not evidence of nonobviousness, as, inter
alia, it is not the objective of patents to present all
obvious variations of a disclosed invention.
The argument by the Examiner that the rotation and
visibility of information pages of a carrousel are the key
features of the present invention, and that rotation and
visibility are disclosed by Kreitman et al. is noted.
However, even assuming arguendo that these are "key features
of the present invention," these features are pertinent to the
pages of
the carrousel, and no carrousel or pages in a carrousel are
disclosed by Kreitman et al.
In addition, the Examiner asserts that the basic issue is
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007