Appeal 2006-2859
Application 11/062,725
1 membrane does not envelop an item of three dimensions. Alivizatos does
2 not disclose a membrane with self-adherent characteristics.
3 Olesen discloses supporting pad which is filled with plastic beads for
4 supporting a person. The pad may be shaped to conform to the shape of the
5 person being supported (col. 1, ll. 14 to 20). The Olesen pad is not
6 deformable in three dimensions to envelop an item of three-dimensional
7 shape.
8 Groth discloses a shock absorbent dunnage device which comprises
9 an outer envelope or bag which is air-tight and contains sawdust (col. 3, ll. 7
10 to 11; col. 4, ll. 63 to 68). Groth does not disclose a porous membrane.
11 Fuss discloses a packing module which comprises a membrane made
12 of flexible plastic material (col. 1, ll. 31 to 35). The membrane defines an
13 interior space filled with a mass of fill elements (col. 3, ll. 4 to 11). The
14 membrane may be placed about a three dimensional item to cushion same
15 (col. 3, ll. 45 to 49). Figure 7 depicts the membranes enveloping an item.
16 Fuss discloses that the membrane has vent holes 27 and therefore is porous
17 (col. 2, ll. 27 to 32). The membrane of Fuss does not have self-adherent
18 characteristics.
19
20 DISCUSSION
21 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
22 anticipated by Tate because we find that Tate discloses each element of
23 claim 1. We do not find the Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 7) that Tate
24 does not discloses a shipping carton persuasive because this argument is not
25 commensurate in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a shipping
26 carton. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 7-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013