Case Name: In re Henry I. Burr
Court: United States Customs Court
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-03-19
Citations: 51 C.C.P.A. 1090
Docket Number: No. 7114
Parties: In re Henry I. Burr
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 1090–1094

Head Matter:
328 F. 2d 1009; 140 USPQ 668
In re Henry I. Burr
(No. 7114)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
March 19, 1964
Henry L. Shenier {Francis M. O’Connor, of counsel) for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore {Jere W. Sears, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument January 10, 1964, by Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Sears]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges

Opinion:
Woklet, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Burr appeals from the board's affirmance of the rejection of his patent application.
The invention relates to a memorandum book whose pages have a vertical line of perforations divided into a "record page portion" and an "appointment panel portion." The latter is divided by a horizontal line of perforations into "two appointment memorandum panels." Those bear respective legends indicating two successive dates. The book has a front cover with a hinge dividing it into two sections which are coextensive in area with the record and appointment panel portions of the pages. The axis of the hinge coincides with the vertical line of perforations. The section of the cover corresponding to the appointment panel portion of the pages can be folded along the hinge to expose the appointment panel while leaving the record portion of the page concealed. Because of the perforations, the two memorandum panels comprising the appointment panel are separately removable. Two allegedly advantageous features of the book are: the two memorandum panels permit a simultaneous glimpse of appointments for "today and tomorrow;" and the hinged cover permits exposure of a portion of the page while concealing the remainder from the view of a bystander.
Claim 5 reads:
• 5. A record and memorandum book including in combination a cover, a plurality of leaves each forming a page, means for bolding said leaves and said cover in assembled relationship to form said book, each of said leaves formed with a first line of perforations dividing each page into a permanent section and a removable section, a hinge in said cover for dividing the cover into first and second sections substantially coextensive in area with the respective page see- tions, said hinge having an axis which registers with said first line of perforations when the cover is closed, each of said leaves provided with a second line of perforations extending inwardly from the edge of the leaf to said first line of perforations to divide the removable page portion into a pair of separable memorandum panels and respective legends indicating successive dates on the memorandum panels of each page, the legends of successive pages indicating a sequence of dates, the construction being such that the first cover section may be folded along the auxiliary hinge to expose removable page sections while concealing permanent page sections, the arrangement of said panels being such that legends corresponding to successive dates are exposed when the first cover section is folded.
The references relied on are:
Weber (German), 893,639, October 19,1953.
Brandt, 361,122, April 12,1887.
Smith, 1,307,708, June 24,1919.
Weber, the primary reference, discloses a record and memorandum hook wherein each page is divided by a vertical perforated line into a removable memorandum portion and a permanent record portion. The front cover is coextensive in area with the permanent record portions of each page thereby exposing only the removable memorandum portions of each page to view.
Brandt discloses a tablet having a hinged cover "so that the written matter on the upper portion will be hidden from the view of prying persons who may be standing close by."
Smith is relied on to show that it is old in the art to divide and subdivide pages of a memorandum book by perforation. Smith discloses a checkbook whose pages are divided by horizontal perforations. The permanent section is used to keep records of checks written.
The board sustained the examiner's holding that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weber's record and memorandum book by providing it with a hinged cover to permit exposure of the removable section while concealing the permanent section from view as disclosed by Brandt. The board also held that it would be obvious to modify the removable memorandum panel of Weber by dividing it with horizontally perforated lines, a technique known to the makers of record and memorandum books as evidenced by the Smith patent. It also regarded the successive dating of the vertical subdivisions of Weber's memorandum panel as obvious.
Appellant contends that his memorandum book embodies a novel concept; that the board's modifications of Weber's memorandum book would not be obvious from the prior art but are the result of hindsight; and that even if Weber were so modified one does not obtain appellant's memorandum book having a unique "today and tomorrow feature."
• We see no error in the board's holding. Brandt clearly suggests' the desirability of a hinged cover to expose part of a page while concealing the balance. The central idea of a memorandum book having a plurality of pages divided by a vertical line of perforations into temporary removable portions and permanent record portions is dis?closed by Weber. At the top of the removable panel of Weber is a statement reminding the user that the items of business noted on> the removable panel relate not to a particular day but to matters' to be settled that week. The suggestion to divide the removable1 portions of the pages of Weber's book by horizontal perforated lines, is clear from the disclosure of Smith.' It seems to us that the successive dating feature of appellant's book would be a matter of' common sense and would be particularly obvious to makers of memorandum books. Indeed, the designation ' of the removable panel of Weber as covering a week's activities would make obvious the alternative of providing separately vertically distinct areas for each day of the week or for two or some other number of consecutive days, and Smith would suggest that such distinct areas be separated by horizontal perforations. Bather than being a case of hindsight, we are convinced that one of ordinary-skill in this art, with the teachings of Weber, Brandt and Smith before him, would find it obvious to do what has been done.
The decision is affirmed.
Serial No. 839,697, filed September 14, 1959.