Appeal No. 98-2123
Application No. 08/326,669
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Treating first the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12-15,
18-22, 27, 28 and 31, the answer states that in Gee the sleeve
14 has open edges and is
capable of receiving a functional member therein,
for example, medication tablet 38, sugar bag 26,
etc. The claimed limitations of a "test strip" and
a "medical test strip" (claims 4-5, etc.) are met by
the sugar bag and medication tablet package,
respectively. Regarding the "window" arguments,
note that claim 10 recited "wherein said card
further includes a transparent display window
therein". The card 10 of Gee is made of
transparent, "see through" feature, (column 2, lines
60-64). Therefore, the top or bottom surfaces of
the card 10 is considered as the display window.
Insofar as the record is concerned, the Examiner did
not state that to stow a thermometer in the sleeve
is well known in the art. However, the sleeve 14 of
Gee does have an open end for receiving a variety of
functional members therein, such as sugar bag or
medication package. Thus, Gee's sleeve clearly has
the capacity of receiving a variety of things as of
Appellants' sleeve such as a microfilm as taught by
Cohan or a thermometer strip, needles or toothpick.
Appellant argues that the prior art does not provide
a "cutout" portion. The "cutout" (claim 16)
limitations are met by the cutout 24 of Gee and the
microfilm can be located therein instead of the
sugar bag 26. [Pages 5 and 6.]
The appellants argue that the member 14 of Gee cannot be
considered to be a sleeve "integrally bound therein"
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007