COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS; Anticipation; Sec. 28 & 43 - CREDIT CARD BILLFOLD
It was concluded that the art cited related to a different invention than
applicants invention but other uncited art should be applied. The
rejection was withdrawn, and the application returned to the examiner
to consider the other art.
Final Action: Withdrawn
***********
Patent application 246898 (Class 215-51), was filed on March 2, 1976
for an invention entitled "Credit Card Billfold And A Flexible Card
Protecting Flap." The inventor is John F. Reis, assignor to Amity
Leather Products Co. The Examiner in charge of the application took
a Final Action on January 16, 1978 refusing to allow it to proceed to
patent. In reviewing the rejection, the Patent Appeal Board held a
Hearing on Sept. 5, 1979 and at which the Applicant was represented by
Mr. A.R. Campbell.
The subject matter of this application relates to a billfold or wallet
for carrying credit cards in shingled relationship, with a transparent
flexible flap member covering the cards to protect them. Figure 1 of
the application illustrates what is involved.
(see formula I)
In the Final Action the Examiner cited U.S. patent 3,856,063 - December
24, 1974 to Dengel as one of the primary references. Section 28(2) of
the Patent Act was applied using the filing date of Dengel which is
April 2, 1973. Amity Leather Products Co. owns both the Dengel United
States patent and this application.
At the Hearing Mr. Campbell argued that Dengel is not citable under
Section 28 or 43 of the Patent Act since it is directed to a different
invention, and does not anticipate what is claimed.
We agree that the subject matter claimed is not anticipated by Dengel,
since Dengel does not include the protective flap. The other references
cited, in particular United States 2,886,907 to Stephenson do show
protective flaps, but not in foldable billfolds. We have subsequently
found, however, that the shingle stacking feature in wallets is known as displayed
in United States patents 3,659,640 of May 12, 1972 and 3,777,795 dated
December 11, 1973. fe believe that these additional references should be
considered before final disposition of the matter.
Consequently we recommend that decision in the Final Action to reject the
application be withdrawn, and the application be returned to the Examiner
to assess the pertinency of these and any other references that should
be considered.
G.A. Ashen S.D. Kot
Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have reviewed the prosecution of this application and I concur with
the recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board. Accordingly I withdraw
the Final Action and the application is being returned to the Examiner
for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 19th. day of November, 1979
Agent for Applicant
Smart & Biggar
Box 2999, Station D
Ottawa, Ont.