Appeal No. 2003-0037
Application 09/924,681
Furthermore, the fair teachings of Verrier and Takahashi do
not justify the selective combination thereof proposed by the
examiner. Considered collectively, these references are devoid
of any indication that a user might encounter difficulty
distinguishing between Verrier’s writing and erasing ends, or
that the proposed modification of Verrier in view of Takahashi
would solve this problem even if it did exist. Moreover, the
respective styluses or pens disclosed by Verrier and Takahashi
are quite disparate in nature, with Verrier’s pressure-sensitive
erasing end contacting portion 38' being far more complex than
Takahashi’s rather simple wave-attenuating eraser with an elastic
tip. The two constructions have little practical relevance to
one another, and the proposed modification of Verrier’s “rear”
tip 4' by making it of an elastic material softer than the
material of the “front” tip 4 seemingly would hinder accurate
operation of the pressure-sensitive erasing portion 38'. In this
light, it is evident that the only suggestion for combining
Verrier and Takahashi so as to arrive at the subject matter
recited in claim 1 stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly
derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Verrier and Takahashi do not
warrant a conclusion that the differences between the subject
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007