Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (Answer 3).
2. Claims 1-14 and 28-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Hardin (Answer 4-5).
3. Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 28-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Greiwe (Answer 5-6).
4. Claims 1-3, 6-11, 28 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over McClintock (Answer 6-7).
Appellant contends that the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest
“the claimed method in which a surface of a material that is used to construct a
piece of furniture is configured to permanently receive handwritten writings”
because they either (1) do not teach or suggest handwritten writings or (2) only
teach temporarily securing a piece of paper bearing handwriting to the furniture
(Appeal Br. 6-7). The Examiner found that giving the claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, the cited art teaches storing handwritten writings on a
piece of furniture comprising a member surface configured to permanently receive
the writing (Answer 8-10).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013