Appeal No. 2004-0404
Application No. 08/992,878
27) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Fothergill, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
seed packet or envelope 12 made from the folded blank 1 shown in
Figures 1 and 2. The packet can include a cellulose or glassine
window on either or both of its sides to facilitate
identification of its contents (see page 4, lines 12 through 15).
Fothergill does not provide any detail as to the size or position
of such windows relative to the sides of the packet.
While finding general correspondence between the window(s)
described by Fothergill and the aperture recited in independent
claims 1 and 19, the examiner concedes (see page 3 in the answer)
that Fothergill’s broad disclosure of the window(s) does not
respond to the specific dimensional limitations in independent
claims 1 and 19 defining the size and position of the aperture.
To overcome this deficiency, the examiner turns to Tullar, Lewis
and either Buttery or Warfield.
Tullar discloses a letter envelope A of standard size and
shape (see Figures 1 and 3) for mailing items such as a check F
having the addressee’s name and address printed thereon. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007