Appeal No. 98-2123
Application No. 08/326,669
(representative claim 1) or "integrally bound between said
front surface and said back surface" (representative claim
13). With respect to claim 12, the appellants additionally
argue that Gee does not teach a sleeve which comprises a
folded rectangular length of stock bound between a front layer
and a back layer of the card. We disagree with these
contentions. Gee's sleeve 14 (styled by Gee as a card) is
formed much in the same manner as the appellants' sleeve 24
(i.e., it is formed by folding a rectangular length of stock
in half) and when this sleeve is inserted into the envelope or
jacket 10 it can be considered to be "integrally bound
therein" as broadly claimed. Although the appellants argue
that Gee's sleeve is not "bound" therein since it is
removable, the broad recitation of "bound" does not preclude
removability. The sleeve 14 of Gee receives an elongate
member 22 which has the capability of being repeatedly
received and withdrawn from the sleeve. While the examiner
has noted that the envelope or jacket 10 of Gee may be
transparent (see col. 2, line 64), we also observe that in the
embodiment of Fig. 7 this jacket or envelope may be "paper or
cardboard" (see col. 3, line 60) and, thus, the envelope or
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007