Appeal No. 2004-0089 5
Application No. 09/949,327
the printed matter ands the substrate remains the same, providing a distinctive design or
visual pattern associated with the letter. These critical features of the invention are
disclosed by Luftig to the same extent as that required by the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of the examiner under the first theory of rejection.
As for the second theory of rejection relying on the Lohnes reference for its
disclosure of an accordion folded greeting card, we note that a substantial portion of
greeting cards such as end of calendar year holiday greeting cards is customarily mailed by
businesses to their customers. We see no reason why a business would not use the same
customer base in the same manner as Luftig in issuing holiday greeting cards to their
customers, either identifying them by number or other distinctive designs in the manner
disclosed by Luftig and as required by the claimed subject matter.
Based upon the above evidentiary findings, we conclude that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the folding accordion greeting
card of Lohnes to replace the message in the card of Luftig. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejections over Luftig in view of Lohnes and further in view of Conn.
A discussion of the Conn reference is not needed in reaching our decision.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Luftig in view of Lohnes and further in view of Conn is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007