Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
Figures 3 and 4 of Clark is meant to be an alternative to the
corner slit seen therein, and that the flap seen in Figures 3 and
4 may thus be used alone as the sole means to prevent
displacement of the card (3) in that direction.
As for appellants' argument that the examiner is using
hindsight reconstruction in light of appellants' teaching and
disclosure to render the claimed invention obvious, in light of
the foregoing determinations, we do not find such argument to be
persuasive of error in this case on the examiner's part. In the
present case, we are convinced that it would have been obvious to
the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants' invention to combine the teachings and suggestions
found in Coit, Clark and Standal in the manner urged by the
examiner so as to arrive at an "automatic insertion adapted card
carrier" like that claimed by appellants in claim 1 on appeal.
The examiner's rejection of claim 1 on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Coit and Clark or Standal, accordingly, is
sustained.
Given our above determination that claims 1, 3 through 5, 10
and 11 should be considered as standing or falling together, it
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007