Appeal No. 96-0501
Application 08/101,499
wall which serves as a protective barrier to keep the fill
material out of direct contact with the article” (emphasis
added). The other independent claims, 30, 33 and 34, contain
similar language. This language is somewhat misleading, since
the use of the word “and” implies that the claim is drawn to a
double-walled enclosure having a first wall as the “external
surface” and a second wall as the “protective barrier.” However,
we do not find a disclosure of any such double-walled enclosure
in the application, and therefore will construe the claims as
calling for an enclosure having a wall which is both the
“external surface” and the “protective barrier” recited in the
claims.
Turning to the references applied against claim 8, we find
in Wright at col. 7, line 33 to col. 8, line 58 a disclosure of
apparatus meeting all the limitations recited in claim 8, except
for the use of “water soluble biodegradable material.” Thus,
Wright discloses a container or “first packaging enclosure” (col.
7, line 34), an article in the container (col. 8, line 7), and
plural cushioning devices or “second packaging enclosures” (col.
7, line 35) which are sealed flexible enclosures containing
individual particles (col. 7, lines 49 to 52 and 65), the
pressure within the enclosures being subatmospheric with the fill
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007