Appeal No. 97-1640
Application 08/326,059
Rejection (2)
In this rejection, the examiner adds to the combination of Sowle and Gottily the Fujio
reference, as teaching the provision of “three or more layers of thickness” (col. 2, lines 9 to
15) on a reinforcing-levering band. The examiner concludes that (final rejection, page 4):
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
provide the reinforcing-levering bands of Sowle with
the thickening layers of Fujio, in order to add strength
to the reinforcing-levering bands, and thus, to the
tear strips.
We agree. The fact that Fujio may teach that no lines of perforations are to be
used, as appellants argue on pages 4 to 5 of their brief, does not vitiate the force of its
teaching of making the tear tabs 3 in three or more layers for “added strength” (col. 2, line
9). Such teaching would obviously be equally applicable to all tear tabs, including tabs 32,
34 of Sowle, regardless of whether or not they are used in conjunction with perforations.
Rejection (2) will be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 to 15 is affirmed as to claims 11 to 14,
and reversed as to claim 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007