Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
examiner. While it is true that one might place a sheet of
paper in between
the protective sheet (44a) and the opaque masks (50b, 52b) of
Bisberg, assuming that the folder therein is then used in a
pad holder in the manner urged by the examiner, there is no
pocket or other structure to hold the paper in the insert as
is required in appellant's "holder means" of claim 1 on
appeal. Furthermore, while it is certainly possible, as urged
by the examiner, to staple or paper clip a sheet of paper to
the elements (44a, 50b, 52b) of Bisberg, such extraneous means
for holding a paper in place is not part of the structure of
the folder in Bisberg, nor of the "holding means" as required
in appellant's claim 1 on appeal. Thus, for these reasons,
the examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Bisberg will
not be sustained.2
2With respect to appellant's arguments in the brief and reply brief
concerning the issue of non-analogous art in a rejection based on anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we direct appellant's attention to the somewhat more
current precedent of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007