Appeal No. 97-0256
Application 08/233,215
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on PT.
As for the examiner’s position regarding claims 6 and 7, we
share appellant’s view that the examiner’s attempt to provide the
“L” shaped pad of PT with a “central hinge” as required in claims
6 and 7 on appeal is based on an improper hindsight
reconstruction motivated by having first viewed appellant’s
disclosed and claimed invention. For that reason, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on PT.
We next review the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rogow.
Contrary to appellant’s arguments, we consider that the article
depicted in Rogow is generally “L” shaped, and that it includes a
“substantially” rectangular vertically oriented leg or main
writing surface/message area defining an upstanding leg of the
“L” and a “substantially” rectangular extension from the lower
end of the upstanding leg defining the lower base leg of the “L.”
While the extension seen in Rogow has a rounded top right corner,
we nonetheless consider that the writing surface of the extension
is “substantially” rectangular. As to the proper definition of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007