Appeal No. 1998-0233
Application 08/469,065
to argued claim 20, we note, as stated by the examiner, that
claim 20 is a product-by-process limitation that does not
serve to distinguish the subject matter claimed from the
business card holder disclosed in Ristuccia.
However, with respect to claim 25, the examiner has
not provided any evidence that it would have been obvious to
manufacture the business card holders as illustrated by
Ristuccia from a continuous web by die cutting the web and
practicing the method claimed by appellant. Certainly, the
appellant has stated in his specification that the die cut
apparatus is known in the
art. But the examiner has not provided any evidence that it
would have been obvious to make the card holders from such an
apparatus. Reliance on appellant's specification for this
suggestion or motivation is not proper. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 25 is reversed.
With respect to the declaration submitted by the
appellant, a copy of which is attached to the brief, the
declaration merely states that appellant was only aware of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007