Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
Appellants argue, on page 9 of the brief: “Newhouse does not teach, nor
does the Final Office Action allege in its rejection of claim 29 that Newhouse
teaches its label being adapted to receive information from the user.”
In response, on page 7 of the answer, the examiner asserts, “Newhouse
does not teach the label as receiving information, yet the label is still capable of
(and “adapted to”) doing so.”
We concur with the examiner. Claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein at
least a portion of said label flat surface is adapted to receive information from a
user.” Appellants’ specification, on page 4, identifies that the label has a flat
surface that the user can add information. The additional information can be
added by the user by tags attached with hook and loop fasteners, tags mounted
on slides or by writing on the label. Thus, we find that the scope of claim 29
includes that the label can be written upon by the user, but is not limited to
actually having writing by the user, i.e. this limitation is broad enough to
encompass almost anything a person could scribble upon with a pen or pencil.
We find that the information card of Newhouse is disclosed as being flat and able
to be seen by the user of the chair. As can be seen from figure 5A in Newhouse
the label may have blank space. We find no disclosure Newhouse of a device or
mechanism which prevents a person from writing on the label, thus we find that
Newhouse is adapted receive information from the user. Accordingly, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007