Appeal 2006-3299
Application 10/346,878
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
is incorrect as none of the cited references discloses or suggests a slit having
a hooking area which helps to hold the sheet protector in place (Br. 7).
Appellants further argue that combining the multitude of references cited in
the rejection would not produce the claimed invention (Br. 8).
Issue
Would the cited prior art have suggested to a person of ordinary skill
in this art forming a sheet protector comprising curved slits that join the
holes of the sheet protector to the edge of the sheet protector, as proposed by
the Examiner?
Findings of Fact
Appellants invented a snap-in sheet protector having slits that extend
from the hole punches to the edge of the sheet protector material
(Specification [0010]). The number of holes on the snap-in sheet protector
are adapted to correspond to the number of rings in the binder (Specification
[0024]). The Specification discloses “the holes are adapted to receive a
standard binder ring. However, those skilled in the art will appreciate that
the size of the holes may be adapted for different binder applications
(Specification [0024])
The Specification discloses that sheet protectors, made from one or
more flexible sheets that are adapted to form a pocket, were known
(Specification [0003]). Sheets protectors having straight slits that extend
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013