Appeal No. 97-0608
Application 08/287,143
elements 14), ejecting the pieces from the cutting surfaces by
pressurized air exiting passageways (16), and collecting these
scrap pieces for later disposal. While we recognize that
Kesten does not specifically designate the small scrap
elements ejected from the cutter as being "void fill
material," we nonetheless consider that such small pieces of
material would be clearly capable of such a use and would be
considered by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the same
manner as shredded paper, to be "void fill material."
Contrary to appellants' arguments (brief, pages 7-
8), the claims on appeal do not include limitations directed
to the subsequent placement of the pieces of void fill
material around a packaged item inside a container, but merely
set forth that the pieces of void fill material are "for"
subsequent placement around a packaged item inside a
container. The pieces of scrap ejected from the cutters in
Kesten are clearly capable of such a latter use, and to the
extent that the language "void fill material" must be given
weight in the claims on appeal, it is our opinion that it
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007