Appeal No. 2002-0950 Page 8
Application No. 09/655,147
respectively) as a result of imprecision in cutting the 45 degree angles, it is also
apparent that Knight’s objective is to have the adjacent edges as close to abutting as
possible within manufacturing tolerances. Even accounting for incidental clearances
which might result from imprecise cutting of the 45 degree angles, there is no indication
in Knight that the adjacent edges will be aligned in parallel relation and have a
clearance therebetween as called for in claim 1. Thus, we do not agree with the
examiner that Knight meets this limitation.
Even accepting that it would have been obvious to modify Knight’s envelope by
making it of cardboard and by forming the flaps E and F thereof with straight vertical
edges, in view of the teachings of Back, as proposed by the examiner on page 4 of the
answer5, this would still not overcome the above-noted deficiency of Knight so as to
arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, we conclude that the applied references
are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of
claim 1 and, consequently, we will not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed and the examiner’s decision to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In that one rejection of the sole claim on appeal is
sustained, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
5 Appellant does not contest the examiner’s position with regard to these modifications.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007