Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
(e.g., the writing[s] are located there between, see Fig. 1)” (Answer 4). See also
Finding of Fact 24. Appellant has not provided any argument or evidence
challenging the Examiner’s finding. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardin.
The Examiner also found that “the use of lines on members to aid in adding
written material thereon (so that the words/letters are written in a straight line) is
well known in the art” and held that it “would have been an obvious design
consideration” to etch grooves in the plaque of Greiwe in order to provide a guide
for inscribing the plaque in a straight line (Answer 6). The Examiner further
bolstered his finding by citing O’Connor (Answer 10). Appellant has not provided
any argument or evidence challenging the Examiner’s holding. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Greiwe.
The Examiner found that the fasteners 17 of McClintock are the claimed
markings that provide guidance for attaching/storing the writings (Answer 6).
Appellant has not provided any argument or evidence challenging the Examiner’s
finding. Furthermore, we note that McClintock’s vertical front walls 16 include
markings (i.e., the section indications) which provide guidance for storing the
writings (Finding of Fact 17). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McClintock.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 3, further requires that the member
comprises a drawer.
The Examiner found that Hardin satisfies the limitation of claim 6 in as
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013