Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
surface of the furniture is the only embodiment in which the surface is configured
to permanently receive the writings (Finding of Fact 10). Therefore, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the phrase “…configured to permanently receive said
handwritten writings” requires only that a surface of the furniture be capable of
having a writing applied or attached thereto in a lasting manner, whether directly
applied to the furniture or indirectly attached to the furniture via a sheet of paper or
other material.
Hardin teaches that the slide leaf 2 is countersunk or recessed in order to
store sheets bearing memoranda, data, or other subject matter (Finding of Fact 20
and 23). The sheets are secured/attached to the surface of the slide leaf 2 by the
glass plate 5, which is placed on top thereof (Finding of Fact 23). Although Hardin
describes the sheets as being removable, they still satisfy the “permanent”
limitation of claim 1 in as much as the glass, which is placed on top of the writing,
makes the writing lasting (i.e., absent some user interaction, the writing will endure
without fundamental or marked change). Furthermore, the claim requires only that
the surface “is configured” to permanently receive handwritten writings. Hardin’s
slide leaf 2 is certainly configured to permanently receive handwritten writings
because the slide leaf 2 is made from a material, for example wood, which is
capable of being carved, etc. and because the slide leaf 2 is capable of having a
sheet attached to it by adhesive. Thus, Hardin’s desk has a surface that meets the
structural limitations of claim 1. As such we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 29, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hardin.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013