Appeal No. 2002-2136 Page 3
Application No. 09/761,077
said length portion of said upper strip being removed
along said horizontally oriented line of perforations and
inscribed with an identification of a bank depositor, said
removed and thusly inscribed length portion inserted into
said second bag compartment in an interposed position
between said rear panel and said front panel folded
thereover to serve as identification of a bank depositor to be
credited with said bank cash deposit in said second bag
compartment, adhesive closing of said second bag
compartment to complete a containment therein of said
identification of the cash deposit to be credited to said bank
depositor, and the manual deposit of said second bag
compartment in a night bank repository,
whereby said high security afforded by said bank
repository is substituted for the lesser security of mail
transmission along with facilitated processing of said bank
transaction as afforded by said inserted bank depositor
identification in said second bag compartment.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claim:
Fromm 2,840,295 Jun. 24, 1958
Gurewitz 4,720,040 Jan. 19, 1988
Makowka 4,733,817 Mar. 29, 1988
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Makowka in view of Gurewitz and Fromm.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007