Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
Before addressing the examiner's rejection based on prior
art, we note the statements on page 2 of the answer that claims 3
through 5, 10 and 11 are considered to stand or fall together and
that claims 1, 9, 12, 19 and 20 have been separately argued by
appellants. Finding no contrary statement in the brief and no
separate argument in the brief for dependent claims 3 through 5,
10 and 11, we agree with the examiner's assessment. Accordingly,
we select claim 1 as being representative of the group containing
claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 11, and address separately the rejections
of claims 9, 12, 19 and 20 (see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)).
In rejecting claims 1, 3 through 5, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 relying on Coit in view of Clark or Standal, the examiner
has expressed the view that Coit (particularly, Figure 5)
includes all of the claimed features except for a flap formed
from a closed slot. To address this difference, the examiner has
relied on the teachings of Clark (Figs. 3 and 4) or Standal
(Figures 2 and 3), noting that the card carrying mailer of Clark
shows a curved flap (unnumbered) which entraps an edge of the
card (3), and that Standal shows a curved flap (17) in a carrier
form for entrapping an edge of a card (16). According to the
examiner,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007