Appeal No. 98-2123
Application No. 08/326,669
surface of Gee's card and, from our perspective, cannot fairly
be construed as a "window therein" as set forth. Claim 17, by
virtue of its dependency on claim 13, requires, inter alia, a
card having (1) a front surface, (2) a back surface, (3) a
core panel comprised of front and back sheets and (4) a sleeve
bound integrally between the front and back surfaces which is
comprised of a folded rectangular length of material bound
between the front and back sheets (of the core panel). While
the sleeve 14 of Gee bound integrally between the front and
back surfaces of the card, it is not also bound between the
sheets of a core panel. Claim 32 requires, inter alia, a card
having (1) opposed front and back surfaces, (2) a core panel
between front and back surfaces comprised of a single sheet
that is folded to define front and back sheets and (3) an
elongate rectangular length of stock bisected by a fold so as
to form a sleeve that is nested inside the fold of the core
stock. As we have noted above with respect to claim 17, the
sleeve 14 of Gee is not bound or nested against the inside of
the fold of a core panel. In view of the above-noted
deficiencies of Gee, we will not sustain the rejection of
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007