Appeal No. 2004-2114 Page 3
Application No. 09/808,122
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is a clock or watch having symbols related to the cranial
nerves at the hourly positions on the clock or watch.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over either Fontaine or Crow. In support of the rejection, the examiner
states:
. . .Both references teach placement of symbols corresponding to the
positions of the hour indications around the face of the dial of a clock, as
claimed by the applicant.
. . . In view of the fact that the relationship in applicant’s claimed
invention between the twelve symbols and the dial is the same as that in
the two references, i.e.[,] the symbols correspond to each of the hourly
markers in the same manner, the difference exists only in the specific
symbols used to denote the hour and thus, such symbols are of no
patentable significance [answer at pages 3 to 4].
We agree with the examiner that Crow and Fontaine each disclose a watch
having symbols at the hour positions on the watch and that the only difference between
the instant invention and the Crow and Fontaine watches is the symbols placed at the
hour positions i.e. the content of the printed matter placed on the watch.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007