Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-15 AND 28-32 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
Appellant argues claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 29, 31 and 32 as a first group
(Appeal Br. 6-8). We consider claim 1 as the representative claim from this group.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellant argues that the furniture pieces of Hardin and McClintock are not
configured to permanently receive handwritten writings because the sheets of
paper attached to the surfaces may be removed (Reply Br. 4). The Examiner found
that giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited art taught
storing handwritten writings on a piece of furniture comprising a member surface
configured to permanently receive the writing (Answer 8-10). We agree with the
Examiner’s interpretation.
Appellant’s Specification discloses two embodiments, one where the
writings are stored by writing directly on the surface of the furniture, and one
where a sheet or some other medium containing the writing is attached to the
surface of the furniture by adhesive (Finding of Fact 8-9). Furthermore, the
Specification does not provide any specific guidance in determining when a
writing is considered permanent i.e., the Specification does not provide any special
meaning to the term permanently nor does it utilize the term contrary to its
customary meaning (Finding of Fact 7). Appellant appears to argue that the phrase
“to permanently receive” requires the writing to be applied directly to the surface
of the furniture such that it cannot be removed (Appeal Br. 6-8). However, this is
not consistent with the Specification. The Specification does not disclose or
suggest that the embodiment wherein the writings are applied directly to the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013