Appeal No. 1999-2100
Application No. 08/850,825
multilayered material and not to the bubble wrap material
alone, for nowhere does Kolsky teach using it by itself.
Moreover, the proposed change would have destroyed one of the
objectives of the Krippelz invention, namely, the elimination
of the “plastic raincoat effect,” which would have operated as
a disincentive to the artisan to do so.
We therefore are of the opinion that the combined
teachings of Krippelz and Kolsky fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of
this claim or of dependent claim 3, which stands rejected on
the same basis. Inasmuch as Ito, which was cited against
dependent claims 2 and 4, does not cure the problems with the
basic combination, we also will not sustain the rejection of
these two claims, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 5, which has been rejected on the basis
of Krippelz, Kolsky and Rigsby, also requires the elements
discussed above with regard to claim 1. Rigsby does not cure
the deficiencies we found in the basic combination of
references, and therefore the rejection of claim 5 fails also,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007