Appeal No. 1999-0945
Application 08/786,665
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking at page 6 of the brief, we note that appellant
has indicated that claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 “stand or fall
together.” Thus, we focus our discussions below on independent
claim 11, and consider that dependent claims 3, 4 and 12 will
stand or fall therewith.
Claim 11 on appeal defines a reusable envelope for
wrapping and packaging articles of different shapes. That
envelope includes lightweight and compressible particles in a
closed-packed arrangement positioned within the interior of
the envelope, with the interior of the envelope being at a
lower air pressure than the atmospheric pressure acting on the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007