Appeal 2007-2637
Application 10/741,269
determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims ascertained,
and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective evidence of the
circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject matter (so-
called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such secondary
considerations guard against the employment of impermissible hindsight.2
CLAIMS
Claim 13 defines the invention as follows—
1. A method for creating scented advertisement inserts from
rectangular sheets for inclusion as inserts into mail pieces, the
sheets having left, right, top and bottom edges, the method
comprising:
applying a scented adhesion to a left strip along the left
side of the sheets and to a right strip along the right side of the
sheets, the left strip and right strip being substantially along an
entire length of the left side and the right side;
making a first fold along the left side of the sheets
parallel to the left edge, the first fold covering the left strip
having the scented adhesion, the first fold being substantially
along the entire length of the left side;
making a second fold along the right side of the sheets
parallel to the right edge, the second fold covering the right
strip having the scented adhesion, the second fold being
substantially along the entire length of the right side;
Intex Rec. Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1012 n.6, 80 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 n.6 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (appropriate to focus on disputed limitations).
2 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval
in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The
record on appeal does not contain objective evidence of secondary
considerations.
3 All claim language is reproduced from the claim appendix to the appeal
brief.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013