Appeal No. 1996-0743
Application 08/152,741
Claim 5
Concerning the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 5 as
being unpatentable over Stewart in view of Sauerwine, the only
argued distinction of claim 5 over Stewart is the requirement
of claim 5 that the adhesive of the lateral strip of adhesive
48 is remoistenable glue. While conceding that remoistenable
glue "is, of course, the same sort of glue encountered on the
flaps of conventional business envelopes" (brief, page 7),
appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
never consider using remoistenable glue at adhesive strip 57
on return flap 28 of Stewart because
[t]he remoistenable glue would be exposed on the
exterior of the envelope at all times during the
mailing process. If it got wet, it might cause the
envelope to adhere to other pieces of mail.
Alternatively, it might pick-up all manner of
debris, bacteria or the like and certainly would not
be suitable for licking with the tongue. Indeed,
it’s hard to imagine a situation where the
substitution proposed by the examiner is so
unlikely. [Brief, pages 7-8.]
This argument is not well taken. Claim 5 does not
require that the lateral strip of adhesive set forth in the
last paragraph of the claim be for the return envelope flap.
Thus, even if we were to agree with appellant that, as a
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007