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