Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 10
Application 09/376,548
expressed with regard to claim 1.
(5)
Finally, claim 20, which depends from claim 1, stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Marks, Haarlander and Cavan, which were applied against claim 1, plus
the examiner’s taking of “Official Notice” that the use of retention beads to retain a printed
card or paper in a package is well known. Even if the latter assertion on the part of the
examiner were considered to be the case, it does not alter the fact that the three other
references together fail to render the subject matter of claim 1 obvious.
The rejection of claim 20 is not sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-10 on the basis of Marks, Haarlander and Cavan
is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 17 and 18 on the basis of Marks, Haarlander and Cavan is
sustained.
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 on the basis of Marks, Haarlander, Cavan and
Schlaupitz is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 11, 12, 14 and 16 on the basis of Marks and Schlaupitz is
sustained.
The rejection of claim 15 on the basis of Marks, Schlaupitz, Haarlander and Cavan
is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007