Appeal No. 99-0633 Page 12
Application No. 08/880,247
tag within the frame (100) of Levine, to conclude that the
resulting arrangement would be such that the length and width
of the mailing label would be commensurate with the interior
volume of the frame "such that when folded said material is
coextensive with the dimensions of said volume" as required by
claim 6 would require speculation and/or unfounded
assumptions. See Id.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the
combined teachings of Levine, Corwin and Hines do not render
obvious the invention recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the standing rejection of claim 6, or of claims
7 through 11 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 3 through 19 under the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting over claims 1 through 3 of
Steeley '403 and claims 1, 3 through 5, 15 and 16 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over the claim of Steeley '600 in view of Sawyer,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007