Appeal No. 2001-1844
Application No. 09/178,951
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the teachings of the applied references to
Namisniak ‘160 and Johnson so as to arrive at the claimed
invention defined in appellants’ claims 1 through 5 on appeal.
The examiner’s assertion (answer, page 3) that it would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
to utilize the magnets of Johnson in the device of Namisniak
‘160 to provide for an easier to use marking system, in no way
accounts for the difference we have noted above. This is
especially true since we see no substantive difference between
the magnetic tabs (12) of Namisniak ‘160 that are applied to
the calendar means therein and the masks (e.g., 16, 18, 20)
that are applied to the calendar in Johnson. While Namisniak
‘160 (col. 4, lines 20-29) makes reference to reusable bands
or disposable tapes that match identifier swatches on the base
unit (10) and which may be used to mark prepackaged perishable
items, we find nothing in the applied references relied upon
by the examiner which teaches or suggests the particular form
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007