Appeal 2006-2139
Application 10/292,221
the free-form line drawing,” merely sets forth how the workbook can be
used. Claim 1 is not a method claim setting forth a particular method of
using the workbook. Meyers’ book, in leaving half of each side of each leaf
blank and including only a portion of a sketch, the other portion to be
completed by the student, certainly is capable of a use wherein the student
uses imagination and creativity to interpret and supplement the provided
sketch portion to construct an image that incorporates but is not determined
by the provided sketch portion. In other words, Meyers’ sketch can be
completed in any manner desired by the user, whether or not Meyers
instructs such manner of completion.
Moreover, while Appellant’s claims do not require a method of so
using the workbook, Meyers does in fact teach such use. Specifically,
according to Meyers’ disclosed method, the student turns the leaf over and
completes the image from the “mind’s eye picture” formed in the student’s
memory. Such a “mind’s eye picture” necessarily involves imagination,
creativity and interpretation to fill in the details.
For all of the above reasons, we conclude that the partial sketch on
each of the leaves of Meyers’ book is a “free-form line drawing that a user
can, through the exercise of imagination and creativity, interpret and
supplement to construct an image that incorporates but is not determined by
the free-form line drawing” as called for in claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Meyers’
drawings would necessarily result in boosting the imagination and/or
creativity of the user as Appellant’s invention discloses (Br. 9). While this
may or may not be true, Appellant’s claims do not require that the
imagination or creativity of the user be boosted. Appellant’s argument thus
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013