Appeal No. 2000-2017
Application 08/935,916
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Montgomery in view of Collie and French.
For the details of these rejections, reference is made to
the examiner’s answer pages 5 and 6 for a full explanation.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the applied prior art
does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to the rejections on appeal, nor is any claim indefinite.
Therefore the rejections of all claims on appeal are reversed.
Our reason follows.
With reference to the rejection under section 112, we are
not in agreement with the examiner that the “adapted to contain
. . .” language renders the claim indefinite. In our view, it is
readily understood that the adapted to contain phrase refers to
appellants’ claimed cover. While we agree that the “a stack of
sheets” limitation in claims 1, 12 and 19 should be changed, it
does not render the claim indefinite.
We are in agreement with the examiner’s finding that
Montgomery discloses a cover for a stack of sheets. However, we
are in agreement with the appellant that the materials recited in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007