Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
follows that claims 3 through 5, 10 and 11 will fall with claim 1
and that the rejection of these claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 on the basis of Coit and Clark or Standal is likewise
sustained.
With respect to dependent claims 9, 19 and 20, we must agree
with the examiner that the specific shape of the flap (i.e.,
triangular as in claim 9) and the specific shape of the corner
pocket so as to result in an ear which is acutely angled or
rounded as in claims 19 and 20, would have been obvious matters
of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art given the
fact that appellants' specification merely indicates (e.g., page
6) that the flap is "preferably" of such a shape and further that
appellants' have provided no indication in their specification
that the shapes in question solve any stated problem or provide
any unexpected result. Thus, we consider that the recitations
regarding the shape of the flap and of the ears do not serve to
patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the structure
of the mailing folder suggested by the applied prior art. See In
re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). We
further consider that this position is bolstered by the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007