Appeal No. 2004-1637
Application No. 09/130,807
Thus, the combined teachings of Brown and Takubo fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in independent claims 15 and 19.2
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 19, and dependent claims 2,
3, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 20, as being unpatentable over Brown in view
of Takubo.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9, 12 through 14,
17, 18, 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of
Takubo and Penston
In this rejection, the examiner (see page 4 in the answer)
acknowledges that Brown and Takubo lack response to the
limitations in independent claims 17 and 21 requiring a plurality
of light emitting objects for conveying advertising information
to spectators in a field of view of the three-dimensionally
movable assembly. The examiner’s reliance on Penston to cure
this shortcoming is not well taken.
Penston discloses a stationary scoreboard 1 suspended above
a boxing ring. The scoreboard contains display means for
conveying various items of information, including commercial
2 This being so, it is unnecessary to delve into the merits
of the 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration of Garrett W. Brown, filed July
2, 2001 (part of Paper No. 6), which the appellants rely on as
evidence of non-obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007