Ex parte MILLER - Page 2





                    Appeal No. 95-3178                                                                                                                                         
                    Application 08/055,477                                                                                                                                     


                    claims  6 and 7, as amended subsequent to the final rejection.                                                                                             
                    These claims constitute all of the claims in the application.                                                               2                              

                              Appellant's invention pertains to a mechanism for sealing an                                                                                     
                    envelope (claims 1 through 7) and to a method for sealing an                                                                                               
                    envelope (claim 8).  A basic understanding of the invention can                                                                                            
                    be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 8, copies of                                                                                           
                    which appear in the "APPENDIX" to the brief.                                                                                                               
                              In rejecting appellant's claims under 35 U.S.C.  102(b),                                                                                        
                    the examiner has relied upon the references listed below:                                                                                                  
                    Jaynes                                              826,169                                            Jul. 17, 1906                                       
                    Markoe                                              366,099                                            Sep. 26, 1906                                       
                    (France)3                                                                                                                                                  

                              The following rejections are before us for review.                                                                                               
                              Claims 1 through 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                                          
                     102(b) as being anticipated by Jaynes.                                                                                                                   
                              Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under                                                                                          
                    35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Markoe.                                                                                                         


                              2The panel designated in this appeal, upon review of appellant's brief,                                                                          
                    discovered appellant's request for an oral hearing. A Program and Resource                                                                                 
                    Administrator of the board, responsible for setting hearings, inquired of                                                                                  
                    appellant as to whether an oral hearing was still sought. As indicated in                                                                                  
                    Paper No. 15, appellant chose to waive the oral hearing requested. This panel                                                                              
                    therefor proceeded to decide the appeal on brief.                                                                                                          
                              3Our understanding of this document is derived from a reading of a                                                                               
                    translation thereof prepared in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.                                                                             
                    A copy of the translation is appended to this opinion.                                                                                                     
                                                                                      2                                                                                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007