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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013