Appeal No. 95-2936
Application 07/887,040
nozzle applicator which delivers moistening fluid to an envelope
flap and a tape moistening apparatus for applying moistening
fluid to a tape, both used in a single mailing system as
specified in claim 24, and (2) a filter means operatively
connected to a moistening apparatus in the manner specified in
claims 9, 11 and 12.
Our review of the references to Katz and McCausland,
applied by the examiner against dependent claims 13 and 14 to
show specific forms of filter materials, also reveals nothing
which would have provided an incentive, or an adequate teaching
or suggestion, for combining Marzullo, Lupkas, O'Dea and Muisener
in the manner urged by the examiner. Accordingly, it follows
that the examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 also will not be sustained.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new rejection of claim 23 on appeal.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over O'Dea in view of Marzullo. As is apparent from
our review of appellant's specification (pages 1, 2, 4 and 5),
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007