Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to provide
the lower edge of Coit's card, as seen in Figure 5,
with an entrapping flap, as taught by either Clark or
Standal et al., because it would provide an extra
measure of security for Coit's card when the folder is
unfolded. The flap would provide the sole means for
releasably holding the card against movement out of the
corner pockets in a fourth direction when Coit's mailer
is folded and when it is unfolded. As can be seen from
Figure 2 of Coit, the card is spaced from the fold.
Therefore, when an entrapping flap is added, as taught
by either Clark or Standal et al., the fold does not
engage the card when Coit's mailer is folded and, thus,
does not hold the card against movement. The partic-
ular shape of the flap (claim 9) would have been an
obvious matter of design.
The limitations which relate to automatic insertion add
no structure to the claimed form.
Appellants argue that none of the references relied upon by
the examiner in this rejection show carriers adapted for auto-
matic insertion (brief, page 8). More specifically, appellants
contend (brief, page 9) that Coit is not adaptable for automatic
insertion and "expressly teaches manual insertion of a mailing
folder," that Clark "emphasizes manual insertion and teaches away
from a flap," and that Standal "relates to envelopes with paper
inserts which are shared [sic] separately by hand." In addition,
appellants urge that Coit clearly teaches away from a flap by
"emphasizing wedge trapping of a card across preweakened fold
lines."
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007