Appeal No. 2004-0120
Application No. 09/898,334
Lazar for the purpose of providing a changeable labeling system
(id.). We agree.
Appellant argues that Lazar does not teach a binder anywhere
in the text or drawings (Brief, page 7). As correctly noted by
the examiner (Answer, page 4), Dottel is relied upon to show the
basic binder with a label3 while Lazar is relied upon for the
teaching of a whiteboard labeling system for articles in general,
specifically video or audio cassettes. A reference is available
for all that it discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill
in the art, and is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979);
In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
Therefore appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion, teaching or
need, expressed or implied, in either Dottel or Lazar to utilize
the teachings of the other (Brief, page 8). Appellant submits
that one making filing devices as taught by Dottel would not turn
3We note that Dottel does not specifically describe or
number what appears to be a label on the spine 2 (see Figure 5).
However, since appellant agrees with the examiner that the
structure on the spine 2 of Dottel is a label (Brief, page 8,
second full paragraph), we accept the examiner’s finding
regarding the label of Dottel.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007