Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
Analysis of Obviousness Issues
A. Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wyant in view of Dick.
Appellant separately argues claims 1, 8 and 32. For claim 5, Appellant
repeats the same argument made for claim 1. We will therefore treat claims 2-7, 9,
11-13 and 16-18 as standing or falling with claim 1. Claim 8 will be addressed
separately. Because Appellant repeats the same arguments for claims 32-34, we
will treat claims 33 and 34 as standing or falling with claim 32 See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant disputes that the prior art teaches “at least a portion of the attached
edge section being one of chemically bonded, fused or glued to the first surface of
the base sheet” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues
that Dick does not disclose chemical bonding, fused or glued construction
(Substitute Br. 11). Dick teaches that the pocket may be secured by any suitable
means (Finding of Fact 16). Moreover, Wyant teaches that any convenient
bonding method including adhesive can be used to secure the tab yielding panel to
the card (Finding of Fact 13). From these teachings, we find that the combination
of Wyant and Dick would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
Wyant teaching of bonding method to secure the Dick pocket. Therefore, the prior
art teaches “at least a portion of the attached edge section being one of chemically
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013