Appeal No. 2004-0356
Application 09/811,993
also for what it fairly suggests (In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)), as well as the reasonable
inferences which the artisan would logically draw from the
reference. See In re Shepard, 219 F.2d 194, 197, 138 USPQ 148,
150 (CCPA 1963).
Contrary to appellant’s assertion in the brief (page 9), we
do not see that Boggess in any way “admits to being incompatible
with the Sernovitz-type of point-of-purchase signs.” Moreover,
although the illuminated display device of Sernovitz may not be
mounted so as to protrude into a store aisle like the display
apparatus of Boggess, we find nothing in Sernovitz which in any
way limits placement of the display device therein to an
orientation parallel to a store aisle and across the front of a
shelf, as appellant seems to imply in the argument spanning pages
9-10 of the brief. Nor do we perceive that Boggess and Sernovitz
in any way “teach away” from the present invention.
As for appellant’s contention that “the law of issue
preclusion mandates reversal here based upon the results in the
parent appeal as to claims very similar in limitations to the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007