Appeal No. 97-4083
Application 08/422,933
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In the present case, Lawrence’s casing 1 and electric bulb 29 meet the recitation in
claim 1 of the shallow back-lighting means, Lawrence’s clear plate 16 meets the recitation
in claim 1 of the transparent cover means, and Lawrence’s frame portions 4, 5, 6 and 7
meet the recitation in claim 1 of the decorative frame means. In addition, although
Lawrence’s display device is disclosed as being supportable on an underlying surface via
feet 15, it is not evident why such device is not inherently capable of being wall supportable
in the broad sense set forth in claim 1. Thus, Lawrence discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the invention recited in claim 1.3
Claim 16, and claims 17, 19 and 20 which depend therefrom, are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Green.
Lawrence teaches, or would have suggested, a display method and artwork
meeting all of the limitations in these claims except for those relating to the “wall-parallel
location” (independent claim 16). Green teaches framed artwork that is conventionally
known to be wall mountable for display purposes. It would have been
3Due to the indefinite scope of claims 7 through 10, which depend from claim 1, the
subject matter recited in these claims cannot at this time be evaluated for patentability over
the prior art since to do so would require undue speculative assumption as to the meaning
of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA
1962).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007