Appeal 2006-3299
Application 10/346,878
The Examiner has reasonably determined that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art to modify the sheet protector
of the admitted prior art to comprise curved slits to join the holes of the sheet
protector to the edge of the sheet protector as disclosed by Schwartz and to
vary the direction of the curved slits as described by Hansen.
We do not agree with Appellants (Br. 9) that the combination of
references does not yield the claimed invention. It is not disputed that sheet
protectors having straight slits that extend from hole punches to the edge of
the sheet material have been previously developed in the prior art. It is not
disputed that Schwartz describes sheet protectors comprising curved slits
each having a hooking area and which join the holes to the edge of the sheet
protector. It also has not been disputed that Hansen describes sheet
protectors comprising mountings having a first slit that joins a first hole
from a first direction, and a second slit joins a second hole from an opposite
second direction. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected success in modifying the known sheet protector of the
prior art to comprise curved slits as described in Schwartz which have
opposing positions as suggested by Hansen. The slit arrangement would
facilitate the insertion and removal of the sheet material without
necessitating the opening and closing of the binder rings. For obviousness
under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.
rejected claims. Appellants also have not presented arguments for the
separately rejected claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12-15, and 22.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013