Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
PT would have a configuration generally like that set forth in
appellant’s claim 1 on appeal and that such a pad would be
capable of use in the manner described in claim 1. To address
the “central hinge” limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7 on
appeal, the examiner indicates (answer, page 3) that
Steno pads are well known in the art. PT does not use
a steno pad type hinge. It would have been obvious to
modify PT by providing a steno type hinge since such is
well known in the art for securing and versatility
purposes.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1 urge that PT does
not teach a reversible pad or a pad formed from two rectangular
surfaces. More specifically, appellant indicates that there is
no disclosure as to what the fancy letter “L” pad of PT looks
like or if it even exists. As for claims 6 and 7, appellant
argues that the examiner has used the claimed invention as a
teaching guide to reconstruct the pads of PT. We do not find
appellant’s arguments persuasive with regard to claim 1 on
appeal, but we agree with appellant as to claims 6 and 7.
Like the examiner, we are of the opinion that an “L” shaped
pad as disclosed in PT would be fully responsive to the
reversible writing pad set forth in claim 1 on appeal and would
be usable in the manner required in appellant’s claim 1. Since
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007