Appeal No. 95-1112
Application 07/969,121
Claims 5, 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parry
in view of Briggs and Parker, further in view of Schirmer and Isaka.
Grouping of Claims
On page 3 of the brief, appellant states that “[e]ach of the twelve pending claims will stand or fall
on its own.” However, inasmuch as appellants did not separately argue the patentability of the dependent
claims 2-6 and 15-17 as required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) (1994), claims 2-4 and 17 will stand or
fall with claim 1 and claims 15 and 16 will stand or fall with claim 14. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1178-1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
Opinion
We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by appellant. However, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections for the reasons below.
The examiner rejected claims 1-4, 14-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry in view of Briggs and Parker. Appellant argues that there is no basis for combining the
references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. According to appellant, “the combined teachings of
Briggs, Parry and Parker teach a flat sheet of film with intermittent narrow bands of corrugated films cross
lapped by at least 10E to the flat sheet” wherein the “valleys of the corrugated cross lapped bands are
perforated” (brief: p. 4). We do not share this view.
Appellant’s independent claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 define a stretch wrap film laminate comprising a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007