Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
teachings of Tannenbaum, would as a matter of common sense
cover the entire rear surface of Murray's holder with the
magnetic-type securing means in order to adequately support
Murray's relatively heavy glass-covered picture.
With respect to claims 7, 15 and 22, the appellants
appear to contend that Tannenbaum does not teach a mounting
member formed of three pieces. However, as noted by the
examiner, Tannenbaum teaches first and second members 2,3
which are spaced apart by a thick adhesive portion 4 in order
to form a groove or slot 5 for the reception of a photograph
or picture (much as the appellants' member 32 spaces apart
members 30, 34 in order to form a slot or groove for the
reception of a photograph or poster). Giving the terminology
of claims 7, 15 and 22 its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we share the examiner's view that the members5
2 and 3 and the thickened adhesive portion 4 can collectively
be considered "three pieces" as claimed.
5See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007