Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
13, for example, the gunwale of a boat (Finding of Fact 11). We see 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, would have modified the display system of
Boeniger to attach the reproductions to the frame using snap fasteners (Finding of
Fact 12). 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 (Finding of Fact 13). See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d at 1396. As such, we find that the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, and 20 and unpatentable over Boeniger
and Terrels and claims 7 and 10 as unpatentable over Boeniger, Sekiguchi, and
Terrels.
Secondary Considerations
The Appellant submitted evidence of secondary considerations in the form
of a Declaration by the inventor, Leon R. Dombrowski, as evidence of non-
obviousness of claims 3-10, 16, and 20. With regard to claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 16, and
20, because we have not sustained the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of these claims, we need not consider the evidence of secondary
considerations as it pertains to these rejections.
20
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013