Appeal No. 2002-0950 Page 7
Application No. 09/655,147
avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ
537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984).
In particular, claim 1 calls for
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 clearance
therebetween present an appearance of a miter joint at each
corner of said sealed mail envelope.
This limitation refers to the miter joint appearance 14 at each corner of the envelope
provided by the approximately 45 degree angled edges 46 and 52 in parallel relation to
each other and bounding “the intentionally left nominal clearance 50 therebetween”
(specification, page 4; emphasis ours). In other words, the clearance between the
angled edges 46 and 52 is not merely an incidental clearance resulting from
manufacturing tolerances; it is intentionally designed into the envelope to enhance the
appearance of the miter joints.
As explained in column 3, lines 50-75, Knight discloses inclined edges (10c, 11c,
14d, 10d, 12d, 14c, 12c, 11d) cut at approximately 45 degree angles to prevent an
excess of material at the corners of the envelope A which are adhered together to form
the strips 20-23. Specifically, these edges are cut at approximately 45 degree angles
so that they are in “substantially abutting contact rather than overlapping with each
other.” While this disclosure suggests that there may be some clearance left between
adjacent inclined edges (i.e.,1 0c and 11c, 14d and 10d, 12d and 14c, 12c and 11d,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007