Appeal No. 2004-1637
Application No. 09/130,807
In applying Brown against independent claims 15 and 19, the
examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in the answer) finds correspondence
between Brown’s upper spherical ball 62 and the cover recited in
these claims, but concedes that the ball 62 fails to meet the
claim limitations requiring the cover to convey advertising
information to spectators in a field of view of the three-
dimensionally movable assembly. To overcome this deficiency, the
examiner turns to Takubo.
Takubo discloses a hand-held camera having a body 10 which
is depicted in the drawing figure as bearing the indicia “JVC,”
ostensibly a reference to the camera’s manufacturer. Although
the answer does not clearly describe the manner in which Brown
and Takubo are intended to be combined, the examiner presumably
cites Takubo to support the proposition that it would have been
obvious to modify Brown’s upper spherical ball 62 to convey
advertising information to spectators in a field of view of the
three-dimensionally movable assembly. Takubo, however, contains
no such suggestion. The only suggestion for so combining a wind-
loading ball in a suspension system of the sort disclosed by
Brown with a manufacturer’s logo displayed on a hand-held camera
as disclosed by Takubo stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007