Appeal No. 2004-1586
Application No. 10/132,863
Thus, after due consideration of all of the evidence and
arguments proffered by both the examiner and the appellant, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of
obviousness. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 and 4 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of either Edge or Sports Pub, and
Kasprzycki and claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of either Edge or
Sports Pub, Kasprzycki, and either Lemberg or Kanzelberger, is
affirmed.
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejections based on the
combined disclosures of either Edge or Sports Pub, and Kebarian
or of either Edge or Sports Pub, Kebarian, and either Lemberg or
Kanzelberger, are on different footing. We reverse these Section
103 rejections since they do not provide a suggestion or
motivation to employ the cards taught in Edge or Sports Pub in
Kebarian’s ornamental design for a key ring. The examiner
provides no explanation on how the cards taught by Edges or
Sports Pub can enhance the ornamental aspects of Kebarian’s
ornamental design for a key ring.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007