Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
and has given the limitation no patentable weight for these
product claims [answer, pages 8-9]. The examiner’s rejection
fails because it assumes that the product of claims 31 and 32
is the same as the product disclosed by Iga. As we noted
above, the “densified region” of Iga is not the outermost
surface of the package but is completely enclosed by an outer
resin layer. Therefore, the structure recited in independent
claims 31 and 32 is not taught or suggested by Iga regardless
of how it is made.
Since we have determined that the invention of
independent claims 1, 15, 28 and 30-32 is not rendered obvious
by the teachings of Iga taken alone, it follows that none of
the claims which depend from any of these claims is properly
rejected based on Iga taken alone. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the rejection of any of dependent claims 2-4, 16-24,
26 and 27 based on Iga taken alone.
The only independent claim which we have not
considered is claim 5. Claim 5 recites a protective film on
the outermost surface of the package which is in contact with
outside air. The rejection of claim 5 is made alternatively
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007