Appeal No. 2004-1637
Application No. 09/130,807
advertising, to spectators. This teaching, however, has little,
if any, practical relevance to the movable suspension system
disclosed by Brown. As was the case above, the only suggestion
for combining Penston with Brown and Takubo so as to arrive at
the subject matter recited in claims 17 and 21 stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’
disclosure.
Thus, the combined teachings of Brown, Takubo and Penston
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to the subject matter recited in independent claims 17 and 21.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 17 and 21, and dependent claims 9, 12 through
14, 18 and 22, as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Takubo
and Penston.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 3 and 8
through 22 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007