Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
securing printed paper forms to the drawers unpersuasive.
Greiwe teaches that the plaque 70 is inscribed with an inscription of
memorialization (Finding of Fact 25). By definition, an inscription is a writing that
is written, engraved, or printed as a lasting record (Finding of Fact 29-30). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of handwritten, in view of the specification, is
any writing which is created by use of a hand tool (see discussion supra). It is well
known that inscriptions can be formed by writing or engraving with a hand tool.
As such, Greiwe’s disclosure of an inscription would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the inscription could be inscribed with a hand tool.
Accordingly, the inscribed plaque of Greiwe renders obvious the 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 Greiwe.
Appellant appears to separately argue claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 28 and 30 in as
much as Appellant states that prior to filing the appeal they requested “the Office
cite prior art teaching” the elements of each of these claims (Appeal Br. 9-10).
Despite Appellant’s lack of clarity, we interpret Appellant’s statement to be an
argument that the subject matter of claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 28 and 30 is not taught in
the cited prior art, and therefore address Appellant’s implied arguments below.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further requires preparing said
member with markings to facilitate placement of the writings on the member.
The Examiner found that Hardin satisfies the limitations of claim 2 in as
much as the “[s]uction cups in grooves/markings (10) are located inside the plank
and inherently provide visual features helpful in the placement of the writings
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013