Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
12. We find no reason why one having ordinary skill in the art, faced with
the teaching of the display system of Boeniger for use in supporting and
suspending flat reproductions, such as photographic reproductions
(Boeniger, col. 1, ll. 6-8) would have modified the display system of
Boeniger to attach the reproductions to the frame using snap fasteners.
13. While we agree that snap fasteners are generally well known; we find no
interrelated teachings in the cited patents; demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; or background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, that would have
provided an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
fashion claimed by the Appellant’s claims 3, 4, 7, 10, and 20.
14. The product sold by the Appellant, the Snapquick Interchangeable
Signage product, uses a snap-type fastener (Decl., ¶ 13).
15. The Appellant’s objective evidence of non-obviousness demonstrates
only that any commercial success of the Snapquick Interchangeable
Signage is due to the snap-type fastener and its durability and ease of use.
16. The Appellant’s proof of unit sales does not indicate whether the
numbers sold were a substantial quantity in the relevant market.
17. The Declarant has chosen not to furnish us with any idea of the size of
the market. Also, there is no evidence that the sales of Appellant’s
product have come at the expense of other prior art display systems.
18. The Appellant’s Specification describes the fastening means as including
male and female snap fasteners, hook-and-eye fasteners, keyhole
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013