Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
In this regard, we observe that the claim does not specify to
what extent the axial strength is increased, such that any
increase in axial strength will satisfy this claim
requirement.
Appellant argues that Heckman’s description “of ‘tacking’
the central portion to prevent vertical movement and then
causing the ends of the sleeve to be ‘in snug conforming
relation’, falls woefully short of anticipating applicant’s
claimed invention of squeezing to increase axial strength”
(brief, page 9). This argument is not well taken because it
mischaracterizes Heckman’s disclosure. The sentence bridging
columns 5 and 6 of Heckman indicates that the sleeve itself,
and not merely end portions thereof, is in snug conforming
relation with the container. A sleeve that is heat shrunk
throughout its axial extent to snugly conform to a substantial
portion of the container body, as shown by Heckman in Figure
10, will squeeze the container and inherently increase its
axial strength, at least to some degree, in our view. We
therefore will sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 25
-23-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007