Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
is anything more than the inherent result of constructing the insert of standard
materials in accordance with claim 35’s other limitations, which are expressly
disclosed in Michlin (Finding of Fact 6). We thus agree with the Examiner that a
prima facie case of anticipation is established by Michlin. Because the Appellant
presented no evidence to overcome the Examiner’s finding of the inherent ability
of Michlin’s insert to pass through a copier or printer, she failed to meet her burden
to overcome that prima facie case. We therefore find that claim 35 is anticipated
by Michlin.
OBVIOUSNESS
The § 103(a) Issues
There are two obviousness issues before us. The first is whether Appellant
has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-18, and 32-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wyant in view of Dick. The first
issue turns on whether it would have been obvious to glue two separate sheets to
form a continuous two-ply seam, as taught by Dick, rather than folding one sheet
to create a seam along the folded edge, as taught by Wyant.
The second obviousness issue is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 14, 15, 19-21, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wyant in view of Dick, and further in view of
Ruebens. This issue turns on whether it would have been obvious to improve a
pocket insert by creating two pockets from a single pocket using an additional line
of adhesive.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013