Appeal 2007-1558
Application 10/635,362
McClintock (Finding of Fact 17 and 24). Furthermore, the Examiner held that it
would have been obvious to include markings, in the form of grooves or lines, on
the memorialization plaque 70 of Greiwe. As such, the only difference between
the subject matter of claims 14 and 30 and the applied prior art is the specific form
of the marking, i.e., whether it is a groove, writing, or genealogical form.
Appellant’s Specification does not disclose or suggest that there is any relationship
between the specific markings used and the surface of the furniture on which the
markings are to be made. To the contrary, the Specification suggests that the
specific marking used is based on the content of the writing to be stored, for
example, a form for recording familial relationships or a business organization or
hierarchy (Specification ¶ 31). However, these markings are not functionally
related to the substrate, i.e., the surface of the furniture configured to store the
writing (see discussion supra). Therefore, mere differences in the specific form of
the markings cannot render the invention nonobvious, where the use of markings is
already known in the art. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardin, McClintock, and
Greiwe.
Claim 28, which depends from claim 1, further requires designating the
member as being intended to receive said handwritten writings in materials
presented with the furniture when the furniture is offered for sale and has not yet
received the handwritten writings. Appellant argues that “[n]othing in the prior art
teaches or suggests this business method in which materials are presented with a
piece of furniture for sale, where those materials specifically designate a member
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013