Appeal No. 2004-0356
Application 09/811,993
April 16, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 19, filed January
21, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination which follows.
In considering the examiner’s rejection of claims 61 through
67, 69 through 72 and 74 under § 103(a), we note that Boggess
discloses a cantilevered, deflectable, point-of-purchase
merchandising display apparatus (10) for placement so as to
extend transversely into a shopping aisle from a merchandise
storage site. Like appellant, it is important to Boggess that
advertising materials carried by the display assembly be in
direct view, from both sides of the display, as customers are
approaching the display from either direction along the store
aisle (col. 3, lines 47-50), and that the display allow for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007