Appeal No. 96-1227
Application 08/134,853
recorded (see Paper No. 33). The examiner, however, has not
made any determination as to the effect of the terminal
disclaimer on the double patenting rejection. Since an
appropriate terminal disclaimer overcomes an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection (see MPEP § 804.02), and the
examiner has failed to give any reason why the terminal
disclaimer filed by the appellants is insufficient in this
regard, we shall not sustain the standing obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 2 through 10, 24 and 26.
Nor shall we sustain either of the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claims 2 through 10, 24 and 26.
Neill, the examiner’s primary reference in the first of
these rejections, discloses a system for manufacturing two-way
mailers from blanks having perpendicularly arranged bands or
strips of hot-melt adhesive thereon. As described by Neill,
the mailer passes through a pair of heated end
sealers 29 of a finishing stage SS which serve to
adhere the end margins of the sections together, and
from there through a cross sealer 30 which applies
heat and pressure in the long margin of the sections
to complete the two-way mailer [column 8, lines 36
through 41].
Figure 8 shows that the paths taken by the mailers through the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007