Appeal No. 2002-0950 Page 3
Application No. 09/655,147
clearance therebetween present an appearance of a miter
joint at each corner of said sealed mail envelope.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claim:
Knight 3,015,438 Jan. 2, 1962
Back et al. (Back) 5,487,826 Jan. 30, 1996
The following rejections are before us for review.4
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Knight in view of Back.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 7) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 6 and 8) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claim, to the applied prior art references, and to the
4 The issue identified as Issue A on page 4 of the brief relates to petitionable subject matter rather
than appealable subject matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.
That issue is thus not within the jurisdiction of the Board and will not be reviewed by this panel. In re
Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007