Appeal No. 2001-1301
Application 08/867,949
unpersuasive, essentially because they are not commensurate with
the actual scope of the appealed claims. To begin with, these
claims recite a display frame per se, not a display frame in
combination with a fabric covered surface and not a method of
using a display frame with such a surface. Although utilized
together, the Easyboard film and core board are separate and
distinct elements, and the film alone embodies a “unitary”
display frame comprising attachment means and a “unitary” and
“flexible” cover. Finally, claim 43 is an open-ended
“comprising” claim which covers, i.e., does not exclude,
additional unrecited elements (see AFG Industries Inc. v.
Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1244-45, 57 USPQ2d 1776, 1780-81
(Fed. Cir. 2001)), such as the fourth attachment means section on
the Easyboard film component.
As for the above noted failure of the Easyboard product to
meet the limitation in claim 39 requiring the attachment means to
be capable of selectively engaging the fabric of a fabric covered
surface and the limitation in claim 43 further defining the
attachment means as comprising hook-type fasteners, the examiner
has concluded (see page 5 in the answer) that it would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to switch the positions of the
Easyboard hook-type and loop-type fasteners, with the hook-like
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007