Appeal No. 2004-0087 Page 7
Application No. 09/677,705
reflective mirror and also when a new appearance is desired for said apparatus
an operator can promptly make additions and removals of said collectible objects
to and from said interior space without having to substantially dismantle said
apparatus, move said base member from its operational position, or disturb any
of said collectible objects already positioned within said interior space.
In the rejection (answer, pp. 3-5) before us in this appeal, the examiner
ascertained that Mullis teaches all of the claimed subject matter of independent claims
1, 12 and 33 except for the movable/separable cover and that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Mullis with an openable panel
in view of the teachings of Singerman.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. In our view, even if it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mullis to
have a movable/separable cover such would not arrive at the claimed invention for the
reasons which follow.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 33, Mullis does not teach or suggest
the recited "support means." The examiner has not treated this means-plus-function
recitation in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. As explained in
In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007