Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
amendment, which was not entered, and a terminal disclaimer, which “has been entered and overcomes
the [provisional] double patenting rejection” (advisory letter (Paper No. 11)). As a consequence, 2
claims 36-39, 42 and 43 have now been “objected to” and claims 44-50 have been allowed (advisory3
letter (Paper No. 11)), leaving only claims 33, 34, 40 and 41 for review.
By way of background, this is the second appeal of the presently disclosed subject matter. In
Appeal No. 96-0980 in parent application SN 08/121,751, a merits panel of this Board affirmed the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of certain claims as being unpatentable over the same Sperry and Willden
references relied upon by the examiner in the present appeal. Familiarity with the decision in the prior
appeal is presumed.
Appellants’ invention pertains to an apparatus for forming foam-in-place packaging cushions,
and in particular to an apparatus for forming foam-in-place packaging cushions that uses center-folded
plastic film material to form the outer plastic bag of the cushions. Claim 33, a substantially correct copy
of which is found in an appendix to the brief , is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.4
2The application upon which the provisional obviousness type double patenting rejection was
based is now abandoned.
3Presumably, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4Claim 33, as reproduced in the appendix to the brief, is incorrect in that the words “a roller
that bears against said web” appearing in the last paragraph thereof should read “means.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007