Appeal No. 1998-0795
Application No. 08/482,639
We have carefully reviewed these rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the determination
that the prior art establishes the lack of novelty of claims
46 and 54. The rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §
102 is affirmed. Furthermore, we have determined that claims
48, 50 through 53, and 55 through 58 have been amended to
avoid the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, this rejection is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Turning to claims 46 and 54 on appeal, we must point out
that the claims do not require the multiple plies of stock
material to be attached or stacked, nor do the claims require
all of the plies to be made of the same material. For these
reasons, it is our finding that Krueger anticipates claims 46
and 54. Krueger discloses a shell formed from tissue paper, a
single ply of stock material. Krueger further shows the
inside stuffing being made of shreds of paper in the range of
8 to 12 mm long and 2 to 3 mm wide. It is axiomatic that the
shreds of paper of Krueger were at one time plies of stock
material before they were shredded. Finally, Krueger teaches
closing the pillow-shaped article with a longitudinal fold and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007