Appeal No. 2005-0784
Application No. 10/138,315
be inserted into a miniature packet of a pharmaceutical article”
(answer, page 4). The examiner’s obviousness position is not
well taken.
In order to simplify the explanation for this last mentioned
determination, we will assume without deciding that an artisan
indeed would have found it obvious to modify Lyon’s method so as
to thereby manufacture only a single booklet having only a single
glue path and further would have found it obvious to fold the
resultant booklet two or more times about fold lines that are
parallel to the resultant single glue path of Lyon so as to use
the folded booklet as a pharmaceutical outsert in accordance with
the teachings of DeLise. The folded booklet resulting from these
modifications simply would correspond to a folded booklet of the
type disclosed by DeLise in, for example, Figure 3b.
Concomitantly, the modified Lyon method of manufacturing such a
folded booklet would not correspond to the claim 26 method. This
is because appealed claim 26 requires a plurality of folds which
are “transverse to said single linear path along which said glue
was applied” (see the second subparagraph of claim 26) and a
plurality of folds which are “parallel to said single linear path
along which said glue was applied” (see the fourth, fifth and
sixth (or last) subparagraphs of claim 26).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007