Appeal No. 95-2346
Application 08/147,093
1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellant's
disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention
from the isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g.,
Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840
F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With this as background, we turn first to the rejections
of claims 1, 12 and 16, the only independent claims in the
application. Appellant argues that
[t]he step of forming a strip of printable material
having at least a front panel, a rear panel and an insert
panel (claim 1, step c; claim 12, step c; claim 16, step
c), within a continuous web of raw material for
sequential processing into a novelty card is not
suggested by the references. Printing on the formed
strip of the web (claim 1, step d; claim 12, step e;
claim 16, step f) is also not suggested by the referenced
art. [corrected brief, page 16]
We agree with appellant. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner has applied Dean and Bellis in combination with
either Cannistra or Malachowski against claim 1 and Dean,
Bellis and Smith in combination with either Cannistra or
Malachowski against claims 12 and 16.
Dean teaches a novelty card including a one piece die cut
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007