Appeal No. 99-0633 Page 10
Application No. 08/880,247
in said endwall" and as we can find no teaching or suggestion
in the evidence before us in this appeal to provide such an
insert as a replacement for the indicia plates of Levine or in
combination with a housing and closure as claimed, as
discussed above with regard to claim 1, it follows that we
cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 12, or of claim 13 which depends therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in
view of Corwin and Hines.
Turning finally to the rejection of independent claim 6,
we, like the appellant (brief, page 14), note that neither
Levine, Corwin nor Hines discloses a transparent frame or
housing, as required by the claim. Further, we note that
Levine lacks a length of foldable material confined within the
housing "having a length and width commensurate with said
interior volume such that when folded said material is
coextensive with the dimensions of said volume" as required by
claim 6. As for the Corwin reference, the disclosure of which
is discussed above, we find no teaching therein which would
suggest use of the folded key-carrying clips (21) in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007