Appeal No. 1998-0953
Application No. 08/467,084
surface 24 of the second panel 12 (Fig. 9C)" (id.). The
examiner, acknowledging that Holcomb does not show the
adhesive seal 38' disposed on the interior surface 28 of the
first panel 14, cites Canno for its teaching of an adhesive
seal 25 (Figs. 2-5) on both a flap 24 and an interior surface
of a panel 21. It is the examiner's position that it would
have been obvious
to extend the adhesive seal 38' of Holcomb et al. from
the flap to the interior surface of the first panel (thus
inherently disposing the first adhesive seal 46 on the
interior surface 28 of the first panel 14) as taught by
Canno, in order to provide the envelope with an effective
and self-sealing closure. (Final rejection, page 3).
Appellant argues that the combined disclosures of Holcomb
and Canno fail to teach or suggest positioning first and
second adhesive seals having different adherent properties at
the locations recited in claim 1 (main brief, page 10).
We agree. Assuming, arguendo, that it would have been
obvious to extend the adhesive seal 38' of Holcomb to the
inter- ior surface 28 of panel 14 opposite the interior
surface of panel 12, as suggested by the examiner, the
adhesive seal would not have been capable of sealingly
adhering to the interior surface
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007