Appeal No. 96-0043
Application 08/059,043
by appellant, and the rail is cut or slit along its length
(column 2, line 69; column 3, line 5), similar to the manner
in which appellant's sleeve may be made (as disclosed at page
6, lines 4 to 7 of the specification), the tabs of Ellis would
be inherently “biased toward each other” as recited in claim
1. As discussed previously, the term “biased” is broadly
defined in the specification; it does not exclude the presence
of some additional means for holding the tabs together, such
as channel 60 of Ellis, but merely that the tabs have a
“tendency ... to return to their position adjacent to each
other” (page 2, lines 18 and 19).
As for claim 2, tabs 58 of Ellis have a portion, next to
the enlarged section, which is “substantially planar.”
The adhesive recited in claim 7 and crosslinked polymer
recited in claim 8 are disclosed by Ellis at column 5, lines
35 to 37, and column 2, lines 50 to 53, respectively.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ellis in view of Cook. Ellis discloses at column 2,
lines 47 to 50, that examples of heat recoverable materials
usable for his invention may be found in the Cook patent. It
therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007