Appeal No. 1998-0234
Application No. 08,406,752
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
display assembly resulting from the combination of Boggess and
Kornelson by using a spring (presumably like that of Slavsky)
to attach the frame portion (16) to the mounting bracket (18)
since this would allow the frame portion to move in side-to-
side as well as up-and-down directions which would provide
greater flexibility in the frame portion and would reduce the
likelihood of the display being damaged. Like appellant, we
see nothing in the disclosure of the Slavsky patent which
provides for or otherwise resolves the significant
deficiencies in the examiner's proposed combination of Boggess
and Kornelson as discussed above. Moreover, we again perceive
the examiner's combination of the applied references to be an
effort to create the claimed subject matter by hindsight
reconstruction, and therefore remind the examiner that it is
impermissible to use appellant's claims as a frame or template
and the prior art references as a mosaic to piece together a
facsimile of the claimed invention. Thus, the examiner's
rejection of claims 18, 44 through 53 and 56 through 60 under
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Boggess in view of Kornelson
and Slavsky will not be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007