Appeal No. 2001-1661 Page 7
Application No. 09/144,654
Claim 33
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection of claim 33 the examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have employed the mirrored practice and training aid of Pfeilsticker over the wall-
mounted game board shown in Figures 7-8 of Scheie in order to better hold the attention
of the player during practice and improve the realism of the practice.
The appellant argues that there is no motivation, suggestion or teaching to have
combined the applied prior art in the manner set forth by the examiner. We agree.
Once again it is our view that the only suggestion for combining the applied prior art
in the manner proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure. Simply put, there is no motivation, suggestion or teaching in
the combined teachings of Scheie and Pfeilsticker to have employed the mirrored practice
and training aid of Pfeilsticker over the wall-mounted game board shown in Figures 7-8 of
Scheie. It follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007