Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
whereby the patch can be sandwiched and releasably held between
the clear cover and the article of clothing.
In proposing to combine Reid with Levin or Mitchell, the
examiner concludes that “[i]n view of the teachings of Levin or
Mitchell it would have been obvious to one in the art to modify
Reid et al. by attaching a transparent retention means with
attaching means over the display article since this would help to
protect the display article from damage” (answer, page 3).
The combined teachings of Reid and Levin or Mitchell,
however, do not provide any indication that Reid’s magnetic
display panels need additional retention means or protection from
damage. Furthermore, the proposed modification of Reid in view
of Levin or Mitchell ostensibly would frustrate Reid’s objective
of simply and easily attaching a display panel to the metal
plate, even when the apparel bearing the plate is being worn. In
this light, it is evident that the only suggestion to combine
Reid and Levin or Mitchell in the manner advanced by the examiner
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007