Appeal No. 2003-0790 Page 6
Application No. 09/138,063
the simpler arrangement. We thus conclude that the examiner’s rejection stems from
impermissible hindsight reconstruction and are therefore constrained to reverse it.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 21, 22, 35, 36 and 38-41
The examiner’s rejection relies in part on the examiner’s determination that it
would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Bishopp, to provide a transparent
cover sheet on the unit of Hoebel so as to prevent defacing of the display sheet
(answer, page 4). Appellant (brief, page 9) argues, inter alia, that the examiner has not
established a proper basis for combining Hoebel and Bishopp and, in particular, there is
no suggestion in Hoebel that the photograph, once mounted, needs the further
protection of a plastic cover sheet.
Bishopp’s invention relates to protective sign shields (column 1, line 4). Bishopp
teaches that vandalism of street signs, particularly with spray paint cans, has become a
very difficult problem and discloses clear plastic or vinyl vandal guard sheets 10 coated
entirely on one side with a clear adhesive 11. The sheets are made in a same size and
shape of the sign they are designed to protect so that scrawling by vandals defaces the
sheet instead of the sign face, so that, after the sign information is excessively
obliterated, a highway or street sign maintenance crew can quickly and easily simply
peel off the defaced sheet and replace it with a fresh sheet. Bishopp also teaches
additional inclusion of a frame 16 that fits over the sign so as to enclose the edges of
the sheet, thereby preventing easy access by vandals to grasp the sheet edge and peel
it off. Additionally, Bishopp discloses an embodiment in Figure 6 wherein several
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007