Appeal 2007-2637
Application 10/741,269
paper folding), but we consider it more apt to treat Olson as reasonably
pertinent to the problem facing Pitney Bowes.
The problem facing Pitney Bowes (creating a stable stack of folded
inserts) is not a problem that Olson addresses directly. To solve its problem,
however, Pitney Bowes turned to mechanisms and techniques in the paper-
folding art.16 Olson discloses a variety of folded paper items intended for
mass production. Consequently, Olson is at least reasonably pertinent to one
trying to determine options available for mass-production paper-folding.
Olson is mainly good for showing that the art has identified several
paper folding options. Not surprisingly, two middle folds (orthogonal and
parallel) dominate the art of folding (approximately) rectangular paper.
Olson illustrates both.17 Indeed, the embodiment on which the examiner
relies illustrates a middle fold that is both parallel and orthogonal, depending
on which side folds are used for reference.
DIFFERENCES
Pitney Bowes is correct that Olson is not directed to folding mailing
inserts. The Olson embodiment on which the examiner relies is a pocket
portfolio. Moreover, the particular embodiment on which the examiner
relies does not show adhesive along the entire edge (and indeed it would be
counterproductive for the pocket portion).18
16 Spec. 5:10-11.
17 Compare the book jacket folds (Olson FIGS. 30, 32, and 34) with the
portfolio fold (FIG. 45). For non-orthogonal shapes, even non-orthogonal
folds are illustrated (e.g., Olson FIG. 51).
18 But see, e.g., Olson FIG. 29, showing adhesive strips 22 co-extensive with
the sides of the illustrated book jacket.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013