Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
McClintock teaches a piece of furniture, specifically, a tablet-file case,
designed to store abstracts of deeds affecting real property (Finding of Fact 11).
The table-file case is divided into a series of sections, each section containing a
series of file-receptacles, such as drawers 4, and vertical and horizontal strips 5, 6,
joined together to form compartments 3 of the desired size (Finding of Fact 12).
McClintock teaches the abstracts (i.e., writings) are attached to the drawers 4 with
the fasteners 17 (Finding of Fact 16). Although it appears that the abstracts may be
removed from the drawers, McClintock still satisfies the “permanent” limitation of
claim 1 in as much as the fasteners, which secure the abstracts in place, make the
abstracts lasting (i.e., absent some user interaction, the writing will endure without
fundamental or marked change). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McClintock.
Appellant further argues that the writings of McClintock and Greiwe are not
handwritten (Appeal Br. 7-8). More specifically, Appellant argues that Greiwe
does not teach “that the plaque can be handwritten” and that “McClintock, similar
to Hardin, merely teaches a method of securing printed paper forms to [a]
structure” (Appeal Br. 7-8). We disagree.
At the time of McClintock’s invention (i.e., 1901) it was customary practice
to hand write deeds and/or abstracts (Finding of Fact 18). As such, McClintock’s
disclosure of deeds and abstracts would have at least suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that handwritten papers could be secured to the drawers.
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument that McClintock only discloses
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013