Ex Parte Ferguson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2003

09792574 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2003)

1 The term “the shoe lace” in claim 5 lacks a proper
antecedent basis, an informality which is deserving of correction
in the event of further prosecution.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte REV. ALFRED FERGUSON
__________
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Rev. Alfred Ferguson appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 6, all of the claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to an apparatus for securing and
displaying a picture on an article of apparel. Representative
claim 1 reads as follows:1
1. An apparel mounted picture securing and displaying
apparatus comprising:
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
2
a lower support member formed of a generally planar surface
having a rectangular outer perimeter and having a pair of lateral
sides intersecting a pair of horizontal sides at four corner
points;
a corner attachment orifice formed at each said corner
point;
an upper frame element forming a transparent retention means
within an outer perimeter; and
attachment means for attaching said upper frame element to
said lower support member.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Levin 4,924,613 May 15, 1990
Mayo 5,727,766 Mar. 17, 1998
Reid et al. (Reid) 5,740,557 Apr. 21, 1998
Mitchell 5,800,900 Sep. 1, 1998
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin or
Mitchell.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin or Mitchell, and Mayo.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 7) and answer
(Paper No. 8) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
3
DISCUSSION
Reid, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses “an
interchangeable magnetic display system which allows for a
plurality of different magnetic display panels, bearing visual
indicia, to be releasably attached to articles of apparel”
(column 2, lines 38 through 41). The system comprises a
ferromagnetic metal plate 22 and a plurality of flexible magnetic
display panels 38 bearing visual indicia 38a produced, for
example, by photography. The metal plate and display panels may
have rectangular shapes (see column 6, lines 20 through 23), with
the metal plate including extensions 16 and holes 15 at its four
corners for accommodating various apparel attachment means. Reid
teaches that
[i]n operation, the wearer of the hat or other apparel
can releasably attach a magnetic display panel simply
by placing the magnetic side of a magnetic display near
the surface of the metal plate. The magnetic display
will then click onto the metal plate as a result of
magnetic attraction once the magnetic surface is close
enough to the metal surface for magnetic attraction to
pull the parts together. The display panel may then be
easily adjusted to the center of the plate. This
procedure can easily be performed while the wearer is
wearing the hat or item of apparel [column 7, line 59,
through column 8, line 1].
Likening Reid’s metal plate 22 to a lower support member
having corner attachment orifices as recited in independent claim
1, the examiner acknowledges (see page 3 in the answer) that the
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
4
Reid system lacks response to the additional limitations in the
claim requiring an upper frame element forming a transparent
retention means within an outer perimeter and attachment means
for attaching the upper frame element to the lower support
member. Reid discloses no such corresponding structures. To
supply these deficiencies, the examiner turns to either Levin or
Mitchell.
Levin discloses an arrangement for displaying a photograph
or the like on a garment such as a T-shirt. The arrangement
includes a transparent plastic window 2, a hook-and-loop fastener
3 affixed to the perimeter of the window, a complementary hook-
and-loop fastener 4 affixed to the surface 5 of the T-shirt, and
a photograph, paper or card 6 bearing indicia 7 sized to be
sandwiched and releasably held between the T-shirt and the window
within the boundaries of the hook-and-loop fasteners.
Mitchell discloses an apparatus for attaching decorative
patches to an article of clothing. Figure 12 illustrates an
embodiment wherein the apparatus 10 comprises a patch 12, a strip
of material 40 having a clear cover 42, and hook-and-loop
fasteners 26, 28, on the rear surfaces of the patch and strip of
material and on the facing surface of the article of clothing
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
5
whereby the patch can be sandwiched and releasably held between
the clear cover and the article of clothing.
In proposing to combine Reid with Levin or Mitchell, the
examiner concludes that “[i]n view of the teachings of Levin or
Mitchell it would have been obvious to one in the art to modify
Reid et al. by attaching a transparent retention means with
attaching means over the display article since this would help to
protect the display article from damage” (answer, page 3).
The combined teachings of Reid and Levin or Mitchell,
however, do not provide any indication that Reid’s magnetic
display panels need additional retention means or protection from
damage. Furthermore, the proposed modification of Reid in view
of Levin or Mitchell ostensibly would frustrate Reid’s objective
of simply and easily attaching a display panel to the metal
plate, even when the apparel bearing the plate is being worn. In
this light, it is evident that the only suggestion to combine
Reid and Levin or Mitchell in the manner advanced by the examiner
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
6
and 4 through 6, as being unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin
or Mitchell.
As Mayo does not cure the above noted shortcomings of Reid
in view of either Levin or Mitchell relative to the subject
matter recited in parent claim 1, we also shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 3 as
being unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin or Mitchell, and
Mayo.
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
7
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6 is
reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
8
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. GUGLIOTTA, P.E., ESQ.
202 DELAWARE BUILDING
137 SOUTH MAIN STREET
AKRON, OH 44308