Appeal No. 1996-2883
Application No. 08/172,466
Kumanomido, Roberg and Kogane forms a window on the pocket by
the presence of a cross member perpendicular to the direction
of the opening at each end of the pocket to form a single
window with the pocket. Since claim 11 only recites “at least
one” cross member and window, the single window of the applied
secondary references suggests the claimed invention.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, 14, 17
and 19 based on either Kumanomido, Roberg or Kogane taken
alone.
We now consider the rejection with respect to claims
22-24, 27 and 31 which stand or fall together as a group
[brief, page 2]. Independent claim 22 will serve as the
representative claim for this group. With respect to claim
22, the examiner basically presents the same rationale we
noted above with respect to claim 1. Claim 22 is similar to
claim 1 except that it additionally recites a limitation that
a third intermediate sheet member is used to form the pocket.
The examiner additionally applies the teachings of Reyniers to
claim 22 because Reyniers teaches the use of three sheet
members to form a film holder. Appellants make the same
arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007