Appeal 2006-2448 Application 10/700,425 We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection over Collins. Moreover, as discussed above regarding the rejection over Thompson, the Appellant’s claimed invention is anticipated by Collins because the indicia on the Appellant’s puzzle pieces is nonfunctional descriptive material. Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Rejections over Guill and over Guill in view of Hall Guill discloses a jigsaw puzzle for use by adults (col. 1, ll. 7-9). The puzzle has 11 playing pieces numbered 2 to 12 corresponding to the numbers obtained from a roll of a pair of dice (col. 2, ll. 17-24). Each puzzle piece preferably shows part of a scantily clad voluptuous woman (col. 2, ll. 31-33). The pieces are placed on the puzzle in numerical order based upon rolls of the dice (col. 2, ll. 24-27). The Appellant argues that rolling dice is not a major life event (Br. 6). Claims 11-13 to which Guill is applied do not recite “major life events” but, rather, recite “commonly occurring life events”. Rolling dice is a commonly occurring life event. Moreover, “life events”, as that term is used by the Appellant, include a first kiss (Specification 10: 4-6). Accordingly, the voluptuous female body parts on Guill’s puzzle pieces reasonably appear to correspond to different commonly occurring life events that may or may not occur. Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to the rejection over Thompson, the Appellant’s claimed invention is anticipated by Guill because the indicia on the Appellant’s puzzle pieces is nonfunctional descriptive material. Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See Skoner, 517 F.2d at 950, 186 USPQ at 83; Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1402, 181 USPQ at 644. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013