Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
the annular reference surface of the insert as called for in
claims 6 and 7, thus making the Corey reference mere surplusage
in the rejection.
On this basis we conclude, as did the examiner, that the
subject matter of claims 6 and 7 is unpatentable over the applied
references. It follows that we shall sustain the standing
rejection of claims 6 and 7 as being unpatentable over Blanco in
view of Wynalda and Corey.
Rejection (7)
Claims 11 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blanco in view of Wynalda and further in
view of Dallmer.
Claims 11 and 28 ultimately depend from base claims 1 and
26, respectively, and add that the claimed apparatus further
comprises an information medium (e.g., appellant’s booklet 17),
and an opening (e.g., appellant’s opening 19) in one of the
sidewalls of the tray for receiving the information medium
between the bottom surface of the tray and an inner surface of an
attached sheet material. In rejecting these claims the examiner
maintains (final rejection, page 9) that it would have been
further obvious in view of Dallmer’s teaching at opening 18a to
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007