Appeal No. 1996-0743
Application 08/152,741
return envelopes.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Stewart in
view of Sauerwine.
Claims 19 and 24-30
Independent claim 24 is similar to claim 15 in the sense
that it also calls for the base sheet to be folded along a
base fold line 78 and secured by the first and second thin
strips of adhesive 70, 74 and by the adhesive 64 on the first
and second tear strips 32, 38 to define an envelope. Claim 19
depends from independent claim 15 and thus includes this
limitation through its dependency therefrom. We have
thoroughly reviewed the teachings of Sauerwine additionally
relied upon by the examiner in rejecting claims 19 and 24, but
find nothing therein that makes up for the above noted
deficiencies of Stewart with respect to this limitation.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 19 and 24, or claims 25-30 which depend from claim 24,
based on the combined teachings of Stewart and Sauerwine.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007