Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
ISSUES
The issues before us are:
(1) Whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
(2) Whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-14 and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Hardin.
(3) Whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-5, 8-15, and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Greiwe.
(4) Whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3, 6-11, 28 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
McClintock.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts are:
1. Claim 12 defines a method for storing handwritten writings. The
claim recites “storing said handwritten writings on a piece of furniture…wherein
said writings comprise a carving, wood burning, etching, brush marks, imprint or
stamp.”
2. Appellant’s Specification defines writings to include “handwritten
letters, words, phrases, names, initials, signatures, drawings, sketches, paintings, or
any other form of markings” (Specification ¶ 0017).
3. The Specification states writings may be made using any one of:
“pencil, pen, marker, paintbrush, woodburning tool, carving tool, etching tool,
brush, imprint, stamp, etc.” (Specification ¶ 0017).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013