Appeal No. 2003-0485
Application 08/767,249
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In maintaining the rejection of claims 18 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fabel, the examiner
has urged (answer, pages 3-5) that the mailing form (10) of Fabel
for use in a non-impact printer includes an upper section (80), a
lower section (78), and two subsequent sections (70, 72) located
between the upper and lower sections. The examiner further notes
that “[a]s seen in Figure 7, each section is separated from the
next section by fold lines formed as perforations (18, 26, 36)”,
and contends that the various sections of the mailing form in
Fabel are sized in the manner set forth in claims 18 and 26 on
appeal.
We have reviewed the applied Fabel patent in it’s entirety
and, like appellant, find that Fabel does not disclose, teach or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007