Appeal No. 2002-0267 Page 8
Application No. 09/440,496
States quarter. It therefore is our view that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Penny Map with 15/16 inch openings rather than the
penny openings which are disclosed.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of the applied
references establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 64, and we shall sustain the rejection. Since the appellants have
grouped claims 65-71 with claim 64, from which they depend, the rejection of these
claims also is sustained.
Claims 72, which depends from claim 64 through claim 71, and claim 74, which
depends directly from claim 64, each contain the limitation that the first section and the
second section of the board are identical in size and shape. Both Di Egidio and Ball are
evidence that it was well known in the art at the time of the appellants’ invention to fold
such boards so that all of the folded sections are of the same size and shape.
Additionally, it is our view that to cause a board to be folded at its mid-point, which is
what this claim requires, would have been an obvious expedient well within the skill
which must be accorded one of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore conclude that it
would have been obvious to provide the Penny Map board with this feature, and we will
sustain the rejection of these two claims.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to claims 73 and 75,
which require that the outline of Minnesota be disposed entirely on the first section.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007