Appeal No. 1999-0945
Application 08/786,665
“sufficient flexibility to said envelope for it
to be wrapped around and assume the shape of a first
article without change in said differential air
pressure, returned to said planar shape without
change in said differential air pressure, and for it
to be wrapped around and assume the shape of a
second and differently shaped article without change
in said differential air [sic, pressure]”.
Thus, while the evacuated envelope in Jarvis forms a
rigid matrix structure about the article to be protected,
which structure is said to maintain its shape so long as the
envelope is evacuated, the reusable envelope claimed by
appellant is expressly required to have only a certain level
of rigidity and to retain sufficient flexibility so that it
can be a) wrapped around and assume the shape of a first
article to be protected without change in said differential
air pressure, b) returned to said planar shape without change
in said differential air pressure, and c) wrapped around and
assume the shape of a second and differently shape article
without change in said differential air pressure. Given such
a stark distinction in the physical
properties of the packaging envelope of Jarvis compared with
those of the packaging envelope claimed by appellant, we must
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that appellant’s claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007