Appeal No. 97-1640
Application 08/326,059
Gottily discloses a shrink-wrap cover 3 for a bobbin 2. The cover is similar to that of
Sowle in that, as shown in the drawings, oppositely arranged lines of perforations 9 extend
along each side of the cover 3. In addition, however, Gottily discloses at col. 3, lines 27 to
31, that:
It will be understood that the envelope 3 construction
may be modified by placing the lines of perforations
in parallel close relation rather than in opposed
relation if it is desirable to remove the envelope 3
from the bobbin in other than half sections.
In view of this teaching, we consider that it would have been obvious, if it were desirable to
remove Sowle’s cover 10 in “other than half sections,” for one of ordinary skill to modify the
Sowle cover by locating the lines of perforations 40, 42 “in parallel close relation.” In order
to preserve the function of Sowle’s pull tabs 32, 34, and since Sowle’s tear lines 40, 42 are
juxtaposed, the parallel perforation lines would obviously be located with one of the pull
tabs between them, i.e., located on opposite sides 36, 38 of the cover directly opposite
each other and proximate to one of the edges of the cover.
To the extent appellants may be arguing that Sowle’s bands (tabs 32, 34) are not
formed by welding the first and second walls of cover 10 together, such welding (fusion) is
disclosed by Sowle at col. 2, lines 60 to 67.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 will be sustained.
Claim 15 adds to claim 11 limitations to the effect that the reinforcing-levering band
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007