Appeal No. 2002-1993 Page 3
Application No. 09/336,648
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sawyer in view of Stadjuhar, Hornung, Bolton, Trame and Ahlstrom.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sawyer in view of Stadjuhar, Hornung and Slotsky.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawyer in view of Stadjuhar, Hornung and Bailey.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sawyer in view of Stadjuhar and Simson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Sawyer, the jumping off point of the examiner’s obviousness rejections, discloses
an advertising apparatus for exhibiting a series of advertisements automatically in
succession within the same space. The apparatus comprises a plurality of curtains B1,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007