Appeal No. 2001-1328
Application 09/079,537
suited for certified mailings, and Figure 5 shows an
embodiment intended for use as a medical prescription form.
In determining the differences between the subject matter
claimed and the prior art, the examiner (see page 2 in the
final rejection) appears to have compared the limitations in
the claims to a hybrid structure composed of elements
conveniently chosen from the package shipping embodiment shown
in Laurash’s Figures 1 and 2 and the certified mail embodiment
shown in Figure 4. The examiner has not explained, however,
nor is it apparent, how or why it would have been obvious to
so combine these two distinct embodiments. Moreover, as
conceded by the examiner (see pages 2
and 3 in the final rejection), even this highly selective
combination of Laurash embodiments differs markedly from the
multi-ply integrated label form recited in the claims. Simply
put, Laurash’s deficiencies find no cure in Neubauer’s
disclosure of mailers embodying covered and uncovered die cut
window openings and/or in Doll’s disclosure of label forms or
mailers having feed strips along their edges. The examiner’s
conclusion to the contrary stems from an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction wherein the appellant’s claims have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007