Appeal 2007-1593
Application 10/462,972
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed August 11, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed March 8, 2006), Reply Brief (filed July 3, 2006),
and Supplemental Reply Brief (filed October 16, 2006). Appellant’s counsel
presented oral argument on July 12, 2007.
OPINION
Rejections (1) through (3)
An issue pertinent to all of rejections (1) through (3) is whether it
would have been obvious to modify Alden’s mailer to make it transparent.
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to make Alden’s
mailer transparent to allow the user to view the contents within the mailer
without opening it (Answer 3). Appellant, on the other hand, argues that
modification to make Alden’s mailer transparent “would fly in the face of
Alden’s described use” and that “one skilled in the art would not
contemplate a clear container for a mailer since it is well understood that a
mailer would be opaque so not to disclose the contents thereof during
shipping “(Appeal Br. 4). Appellant further argues that making Alden’s
container, disclosed for use as a mailer for magnetic recording tapes (Alden,
col. 1, ll. 13-15), would destroy Alden, since “it is well known that magnetic
tape should be protected from exposure to ultra-violet light”2 (Reply Br. 2).
2 Appellant indicates that this assertion regarding protection of magnetic
tapes from ultraviolet light “has been consistently maintained by applicant”
and ignored by the Examiner (Reply Br. 2). After having reviewed the
electronic record of this application, however, we cannot find any earlier
instance of this assertion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013