Ex Parte CRAWFORD - Page 7




              Appeal No. 2003-0790                                                                Page 7                
              Application No. 09/138,063                                                                                


              sheets can be installed at one time on a sign panel so that, when the outermost sheet                     
              becomes defaced, it can be peeled off by a service person.                                                
                     Bishopp is directed specifically to solving the problem of vandalism of street                     
              signs and provides no teaching or suggestion that photographs mounted on postcard                         
              units of the type taught by Hoebel are typically subject to such vandalism.  Hoebel,                      
              likewise, lacks any recognition that protection of the photographs from defacement is                     
              necessary.  From our perspective, the only suggestion for modifying Hoebel in the                         
              manner proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who                      
              first viewed appellant’s disclosure.  This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.             
              See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  We                         
              are thus constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 21,                  
              22, 35, 36 and 38-41 as being unpatentable over Hoebel in view of Bishopp.                                
                                                    Claims 3 and 6                                                      
                     The rejection of claims 3 and 6 relies in part on the same combination of Hoebel                   
              and Bishopp that we found deficient for the reasons discussed above.  In that the                         
              teachings of Levy do not remedy this deficiency, it follows that we are also constrained                  
              to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 6 as being unpatentable over                          
              Hoebel in view of Bishopp and Levy.                                                                       











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007