Appeal No. 2002-0267 Page 9
Application No. 09/440,496
Noting, that none of the references teach placing Minnesota, or any other state through
which a center fold line would pass, entirely on one side or the other of the fold line, the
rejection of claims 73 and 75 cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the examiner.
The subject matter recited in independent claim 76 is much like that of claim 64,
differing in that it requires that the board be bounded by a bottom edge which extends
along each section and is perpendicular to the fold line, so that both the coins and the
outline of the continental United States may be viewed by angling the first section
relative to the second section when resting the bottom edge on a flat surface. Penny
Map is rectangular, and comprises a “board” that, when modified in the manner
discussed with regard to claim 64, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
would appear to be capable of being positioned in the manner required by the claim.
The Ball display system also is capable of standing on one edge, as is illustrated in
Figure 1. Therefore, it 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 76, and we will sustain this rejection, along with that of
dependent claim 77.
The rejection of claims 78 and 80, which require identity of size and shape, is
sustained for the same reason as was the like rejection of claims 72 and 74.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007