Appeal No. 2003-1519 4
Application No. 09/109,884
page 3. Yeager however, identifies 64 as a metal band. See column 2, line 64. Most
significantly, the Answer identifies 48 as constituting a case or bezel. See Answer, page 3.
Yeager however, not only identifies 48 as an “adapter,” column 3, lines 1 and 6, but uses
the term, ”bezel” for 50. See column 3, lines 36, 42 and 63. Accordingly, the
discussion of the Yeager reference in the Answer is confusing and in conflict with the
specific teachings of Yeager.
Furthermore, the characterization of Plesinger is likewise without merit. The
Answer identifies 122, Fig. 4 as a case or bezel. Plesinger, however, identifies 122 as a
front frame member. Moreover, Plesinger explicitly teaches that, “the entire assembly
described above is enclosed in a separate plastic enclosure 126. The plastic enclosure 126
preferably comprises a front panel 128 having plastic tabs 130 (FIG. 4) and a pan-shaped
back member 132 having lip members 134 (FIG. 4).” See column 4, lines 32-36. See
also column 5, lines 56-62. Accordingly, we conclude that Plesinger fails to teach a
display apparatus having a metal bezel or case, let alone one from aluminum.
Based upon the above analysis, we have determined that the examiner’s legal
conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the facts. "Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by [the] facts[,] it cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied,
390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007