Appeal No. 2005-1069
Application No. 10/061,137
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Deaton and Serge, like appellant, disclose a system
comprising a simulated collection area for fossils for teaching
the proper removal and preparation of the fossils. As explained
by the examiner, the system of Deaton does not comprise the
realistic background area of Serge which represents an
archeological dig or geographic locale. However, like the
examiner, we are convinced that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the decorative
features of Serge in the system of Deaton to enhance the realism
of the teaching experience.
Appellant points out that Serge uses reconstituted soil that
is capable of disassembly and reassembly, in contrast to Deaton
who teaches the removal and mounting of the fossil-like material.
Appellant contends, therefore, that modifying the multi-use
reconstituted soil of Serge with the single-use Deaton article
results in "changing the principle of operation of the system [of
Serge]" (page 19 of Brief, penultimate sentence). However, we
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007