Appeal 2007-1593
Application 10/462,972
independent and would similarly improve a receptacle for holding small
totable objects, such as the one disclosed by Danielson.
Rejections (6) and (7)
The issue to be decided with respect to rejection (6) is whether
Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in determining it would
have been obvious to provide a plurality of card securing members on
Masoud’s business card holder (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner contends it
would have been obvious to provide card securing members, as taught by
Alden, if not for mailing, then for identification purposes (Answer 13).
We find no express teaching in either Masoud or Alden of the use of
Alden’s card securing members (depressed panel 22 and retaining flanges
24) on a business card holder for mailing or identification purposes. As
discussed above, however, while there must be some articulated rationale to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness, a specific teaching or
suggestion for the modification need not be expressly found in the
references. Rather, we can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. We start with the
presumption that one of ordinary skill in the art of business cards and
business card holders and distribution would have been aware of the
common commercial practice of customers ordering business cards
imprinted with personalized information and manufacturers shipping or
mailing such cards, along with any accessories therefore, to the customer.
Against such background, the concept of securing a mailing label or address
card to a surface of the card holder of Masoud to associate it with the
customer for whom it was intended in preparation for shipping the business
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013