Appeal No. 1997-3520
Application No. 08/357,487
in excess of 0.5 N/cm can lead to a severe distortion of a
food-carrying tray and "even render the package unfit for
commercial use" (page 7 of Brief). Appellants' heat-
shrinkable film possessing the claimed maximum shrink force
"is obtained by submitting the film, after orientation, to a
subsequent heat treatment" (page 8 of Brief).
Appealed claims 1-7, 13 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The appealed claims also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Newsome '897 or Newsome '960 in view of Bornstein.1
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain either of the
examiner's rejections.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
According to the examiner, claim 1 is indefinite "since the
relative position of the adhesive and outer layers are not
unambiguously set forth and since there is no antecedent basis
for 'transverse direction' or 'both directions'" (page 3 of
1Newsome '897 is equivalent in disclosure to Newsome
'960.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007