Appeal No. 1999-2063
Application No. 08/744,432
the presence of sealing flap a3 prevents the panel A of Rogers
from extending to the bottom of the letter sheet envelope.
Since the references do not individually teach a second panel
extending from a perforated fold line to the bottom of the
label or letter sheet, it is not seen how this claimed feature
would have been obvious from a consideration of their combined
teachings.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the standing § 103
rejections of the appealed claims.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a specification that does not
provide descriptive support for the invention as now claimed.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112,
is whether the disclosure of the application as
originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the
presence or absence of literal support in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007