Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
of these slits, so as to provide a more simplified mounting
arrangement for the card therein when a less refined or less
sophisticated mounting would be sufficient. Unlike appellants, we
do not see that Jory necessarily teaches away from removal of the
slits (18), or "expressly" teaches and requires a carrier form that
must have a five point restraint system. In this regard, we note
that the claims of the Jory patent do not in any way require that
the web carrier form include a five point restraint system. See
particularly, claims 1 through 5 and 13 through 15 of Jory, with
specific emphasis on claims 5 and 15, which define apparatus for
coupling a flexible sheet (card) to a web carrier having only "a
pair of spaced slits." In reaching the conclusion that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate
the slits (18) of Jory and their corresponding function, we again
presume skill on the part of those versed in this art rather than
the converse. See In re Sovish, supra.
While we have fully considered each of the arguments advanced
by appellants in their brief, we are not convinced thereby of any
error in the examiner's position. Like the examiner, we note that
appellants have not expressly indicated in the brief exactly why it
would not have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007