Appeal No. 2003-1394
Application 09/620,202
container 20. Moreover, after such heat sealing takes place, the
bead lies offset from, rather than on, the flange of the
container. Hence, even if the examiner’s rather dubious
conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Bakker’s
heat shrinkable film with a bead in view of the overhang 26 on
Stewart’s dielectrically heat sealable lid is accepted at face
value, there is nothing in the combined teachings of these
references which would have further suggested forming such a bead
on Bakker’s film in the manner required by claim 20.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 20, and dependent claims
22 and 23, as being unpatentable over Bakker in view of Stewart.
As the examiner’s application of Walton for its disclosure
of a heat-shrinkable packaging film composed of peelable layers
does not cure the foregoing shortcomings of the Bakker and
Stewart combination relative to parent claim 20, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 24 as being unpatentable over Bakker in view of Stewart and
Walton.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007