Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
apparatus. See, in this regard, Figure 7 of Jory wherein the flap
(66) is clearly resiliently flexed as a result of a portion of the
web body being bent by the finger (64), so that the flap can ride
up and over the edge of the card.
With respect to dependent claim 12, we note that appellants
have not specifically disputed the examiner's position that the
holes (24) of Jory are located adjacent the edge of the card
therein or that these holes serve to mark the "relative position"
of the pair of pockets (defined by slits 20) and flap (66). Absent
some specific argument from appellants, we see no reason to
overturn the examiner's position with regard to the holes (24).
For the reasons stated in the examiner's answer, as amplified
above, the decision of the examiner rejecting appealed claims 1, 10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of
Jory and Coit is sustained.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20
based on Jory in view of Coit, for reasons similar to those
advanced above in our earlier discussion of claims 19 and 20, we
are in agreement with the examiner that it would have been an
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007