Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
thickness, the pocket sheet single sheet thickness and the
adhesive.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Dick US 1,495,953 May 27, 1924
Ruebens US 4,965,948 Oct. 30, 1990
Michlin US 5,141,252 Aug. 25, 1992
Wyant US 5,540,513 Jul. 30, 1996
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Michlin.
2. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 32-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wyant in view of Dick.
3. Claims 10, 14, 15, 19-21, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wyant in view of Dick, and further in view of Ruebens.
ANTICIPATION UNDER § 102(b)
The § 102(b) Issue
The anticipation issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Michlin. The anticipation issue turns on whether Michlin expressly or inherently
discloses a pocket insert that has “a thickness rendering the insert passable through
a copier or printer in sequence with a sheet of paper.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013