Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
44). Cvacho ‘423 does not even remotely hint that the outer4
housing 16 may be shrunk onto the thin foil inner container 12
to increase its axial strength. The examiner than looked to
another prior art
container, Hoffman, which, although including a sleeve shrunk
fit onto a container body, also does not even remotely hint
that the axial strength of the body of the container may be
increased by shrinking the outer sleeve thereover. From these
disclosures, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 by shrink
fitting the outer housing of Cvacho ‘423 over the thin inner
container made of metallic foil.
Like appellant, we question at the outset whether it is
feasible to shrink fit a plastic outer sleeve over the thin
foil inner container 12 of Cvacho ‘423 without crushing it.
In this regard, we share appellant’s view that the disclosure
of Cvacho ‘423 that the inner container 12 should be made of
4In the statement of the rejection on page 6 of the answer, the
examiner implies that Cvacho ‘423 discloses the outer housing as being made of
thermoplastic material, however, this is not the case. Rather, Cvacho ‘423
merely states that the outer housing may be made of paper or “a suitable
plastic” (column 4, line 21).
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007