Appeal No. 2005-0784
Application No. 10/138,315
Finally, it is the examiner’s position that, even if
interpreted as being directed to a single booklet and a single
glue path as urged by the appellants, the claim 26 method would
have been obvious from the combined teachings of Lyon and DeLise.
Specifically, the examiner contends that “it would have been
obvious in the art to use the booklet of Lyon . . . as outserts
for articles such as pharmaceutical products (i.e. information
regarding a drug product printed thereon), because DeLise
discloses using booklets, of similar structure to the one taught
by Lyon . . ., as outserts for articles such as pharmaceutical
products” (answer, page 4). The examiner further concludes that
“one in the art reading the collective teachings of Lyon . . .
and DeLise would have readily recognized and appreciated that, it
is also well within the purview of choice in the art to choose on
whether to form multiple booklets or a single booklet from a
sheet of printed paper” (answer, page 5). In this regard, it is
the examiner’s additional conclusion that “it would have been
obvious in the art to fold a resultant booklet taught by Lyon
. . . for at least two or more times about folding lines that are
parallel to a glue line, because DeLise teaches folding a booklet
two or more times about fold lines which are parallel to a bound
end (28) to form a compact folded booklet so that it can readily
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007