Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
appropriate digits are developed.” Id. at 1382, 217 USPQ at 402. The Gulack court
found the claimed invention “require[d] a particular sequence of digits to be
displayed on the outside surface of a band,” and that “[t]hese digits are related to
the band in two ways: (1) the band supports the digits; and (2) there is an endless
sequence of digits – each digit residing in a unique position with respect to every
other digit in an endless loop. Thus, the digits exploit the endless nature of the
band.” Id. at 1386-87, 217 USPQ at 405. In the present case, there is no such
interrelationship between the content of the writing to be stored and the specific
piece of furniture on which they are to be stored. Nowhere in the Specification is
there any suggestion that the content of the writing is in any way dependent on the
piece of furniture on which it is to be stored. The applied prior art, i.e., Hardin,
McClintock, and Greiwe, discloses storing a writing on a surface of a piece of
furniture. Specific differences in the content of the writing, e.g., a signature, will
not render the claimed invention nonobvious where storing a writing is already
known in the art. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardin, McClintock, or Greiwe.
Claims 14 and 30, which depend from claim 2, further require that the
markings include grooves (claim 14) or a genealogical form (claim 30). Claims 14
and 30 are directed to methods for storing handwritten writings. The specific steps
recited include storing the handwritten writings on a piece of furniture, and
preparing a member of the furniture with markings to facilitate placement of the
writings. Both Hardin and McClintock teach some form of marking that facilitates
placement of a writing i.e., the vacuum cups 10 of Hardin, and the fasteners 17 of
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013