Appeal No. 2000-1871 Page 10
Application No. 08/907,398
the rear cover of the binder cover." The appellant argues
(brief, p. 17) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
subject matter of claims 1 to 9 and 20 to 22 since the spine
stiffening panel recited in these claims is not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art. In the answer, the
examiner states (p. 4) that Moor "clearly discloses a ring
binder having a three part stiffener in association with a[1]
matching pair of woven synthetic sheets which are connected by
seams at their edges."
After careful consideration of the positions of the
examiner and the appellant, we find ourselves in agreement
with the appellant that the spine stiffening panel recited in
claims 1 to 9 and 20 to 22 is not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art. While Moor clearly teaches a front cover
stiffening panel and a rear cover stiffening panel, it is our
view that Moor's spine 16 does not include a spine stiffening
panel. In that regard, while Moor's spine 16 does include a
1As shown in Figure 3 of Moor, a 3-ring binder member 31
is retained in pocket 36 of Moor's book cover 10. Therefore,
Moor's book cover 10 is not a ring binder.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007