Appeal No. 2001-0225
Application 09/085,021
printer. Similarly, if first and second lines of weakness and
removable first and second side margins having feed
perforations of the sort disclosed by Ogawa were added to
Baker’s envelope forms as suggested by the examiner, the forms
would not meet the limitation in claim 18 requiring each of the
removable side
margin portions to have a pattern of pressure activated
cohesive. Hence, even if Baker were modified in view of Ogawa
in the manner proposed, the method recited in claim 18 would
not result.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 18, or of claims 23 through 26
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Baker in
view of Ogawa.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007