Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
B. Rejection of 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.
With respect to the combination of Wyant, Dick, and Ruebens, Appellant
reasserts the arguments made against the combination of Wyant and Dick, and
argues that Ruebens does not cure the deficiencies of that combination (Substitute
Br. 19-21). Appellant separately argues the allowability of claim 36. The
remaining claims stand or fall together. With respect to claim 36, Appellant
essentially reasserts the “thickness” argument asserted against the rejection of
claims 32-34. The argument fails as to claim 36 for the same reasons as it did for
claims 32-34.
The Examiner relies on Ruebens to show a pocket sheet that is adhered to a
base sheet along the base sheet's perimeter edge and along a strip or inner portion,
which separates the pocket sheet into two pockets (Answer 5). One of skill in the
art would have been able to combine the adhesive strip of Ruebens with the
combination of Wyant and Dick asserted by the Examiner in the preceding
rejection using methods known at the time the invention was made in the
bookbinding art. Moreover, each of the elements of Wyant, Dick, and Ruebens
combined by the Examiner performs the same function when combined as it does
in the prior art. Thus, such a combination would have yielded predictable results.
See Sakraida, 425 U.S. at 282, 189 USPQ at 453.
Claims 10, 14, 15, 19-21, and 36 were combinations which only unite old
elements with no change in their respective functions and which yield predictable
22
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013