Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
much as Hardin discloses a shelf 2 with recesses designed to store writings so that
the shelf can also be considered a drawer (Answer 4). Appellant has not provided
any argument or evidence challenging the Examiner’s finding. As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hardin.
The Examiner also found that McClintock satisfies the limitations of claim 6
in as much as McClintock teaches a piece of furniture that includes drawers 4
which are configured to receive writings (Answer 6). Appellant has not provided
any argument or evidence challenging the Examiner’s finding. As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McClintock.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, further requires that the writing
comprise a signature. The Examiner held that it “would have been an obvious
consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art” to add a “family tree, pedigree
chart, signature, date(s), stamps, specific historical event, time etc.” to the furniture
of Hardin, McClintock, and/or Greiwe (Answer 4-7). Appellant (1) states that his
request for a prior art teaching a handwritten signature on a surface of a material
used to construct a piece of furniture was ignored and (2) argues “[n]one of the
cited prior art references even mention a signature” (Appeal Br. 9). We sustain the
Examiner.
To adequately traverse Official Notice Appellant must specifically point out
the supposed errors in the examiner's assertions, which includes stating why the
noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013