Appeal No. 1998-0233
Application 08/469,065
the recessed area. In view of these teachings, the examiner
has concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Finger
by placing a recessed area and holes in each corner of the
recessed area so that cards could be attached to the card
holder for more secure storage and retrieval.
Claims 22 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Finger in view of Ristuccia and
Goldman, and further in view of McCabe. According to the
examiner, McCabe shows the idea of placing slits extending
outwardly from each of the holes used to secure the corner of
the business cards.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use the teaching of McCabe to modify the holes that
would retain the business cards to the business card holders.
Claims 19 through 21, 23-26 and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hanson in view of
Ristuccia and Goldman. Here again, Hanson shows another
mounting device for mounting the business card holders.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007