Appeal No. 2002-0950 Page 2
Application No. 09/655,147
1. A rectangular shaped sealed mail envelope of cardboard
construction material characterized by presenting a miter
joint appearance at each of four corners thereof comprising
a rectangular rear panel delimiting a selected width
between opposite left and right side edges and having top
and bottom edges,
left and right flaps respectively wholly joined from a
top to a bottom location of one said left and right edge of
said rear panel and having operative positions folded upon
said rear panel, each said left and right flap having top and
bottom inclined edges oriented in a converging relation to
each other starting from a said top and bottom location and
terminating at a clearance location therefrom,
a bottom panel and top panel respectively joined to
said top and bottom edges of said rear panel and having
operative positions folded upon and adhesively secured to
said left and a1 said right flap in said underlying operative
positions interposed between said rear panel and said top
and bottom panels, and2 a selected width size delimited
between opposite sides of said top and bottom panels of an
extent less than said width size3 of said rear panel and also
of an extent less than distances between length portions of
said left and right flap top and bottom inclined edges so as
to leave exposed a beginning length portion of said inclined
edges of said opposite top and bottom edges of said left and
right flaps,
said top and bottom panels having opposite side
inclined edges oriented in a converging relation to each
other and aligning in parallel relation to each said exposed
beginning length portion of said inclined edges of said left
and right flaps and bounding a clearance therebetween,
whereby said aligned edges in said parallel relation and said
1 As only one right flap has been recited in the claim, “a” is inappropriate and should be deleted.
2 Insertion of language such as “said top and bottom panels each having” before “a selected width
size” would greatly improve the clarity and readability of the claim.
3 The term “width size” lacks strict antecedent basis, in that a width, but not a width size, of the
rear panel has been recited in the claim. While this informality does not render the scope of the claim
indefinite, correction to maintain consistent terminology should be considered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007