Appeal No. 2003-1234
Application 09/755,519
under 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). The claim can only be infringed by
practicing the method. The issue is whether the claimed method
of using a known stamp would have been obvious.
Appellant's arguments
Appellant argues that Bissonet does not teach a method of
note taking during a lecture during which there are numerous
occasions when it would be advantageous to use a stamp, as found
by the examiner, but teaches that the printing stamp and pad are
normally held inoperatively in a cavity to provide a flat writing
surface (Br4). It is argued that "the combined activity of
writing and stamping is not contemplated by Bissonet since while
the paper sheet is being used for writing thereon, the printing
stamp and pad are in their storage cavity" (Br4). It is also
argued that the examiner has not considered claim limitations B,
C, and D (Br4-5). Appellant notes that Bissonet discloses a
stamp for identification or approval, quoting from column 1,
lines 8, 9-12, 19, and 20, and argues that "[n]one of the
foregoing text is in response to the lecturer's comments nor does
it have anything whatsoever to do with record[ing] notes from the
lecture" (RBr2). Appellant refers to steps B, C, and D (RBr2).
Appellant argues that the examiner improperly failed to
consider the declaration. It is argued that the majority in
Beattie did not fault the declaration because it was based on
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007