Appeal No. 1997-3712
Application 08/474,340
over Glick in view of Miller.1,2
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections. We need
to address only the broadest claim, i.e., claim 81.
Rejection over Granowitz in view of
appellants’ admitted prior art
Granowitz discloses a suture (32) wound around a reel
(11) placed in a sealed inner envelope (34) which is enclosed
in a strippable, i.e., peelable, outer envelope (36).
Granowitz teaches (col. 4, lines 41-42) that the package can
be of the type disclosed by Buccino (U.S. 2,949,181).
Buccino’s inner envelope is made of polyethylene or polyvinyl
film and his outer envelope is made of polyester or other film
1 Obviousness-type double patenting rejections in the
final rejection (pages 2-3) have been overcome by the filing
of a terminal disclaimer (communication from the examiner
filed June 27, 1997, paper no. 18).
2 Appellants and the examiner should address whether there
is sufficiently clear antecedent basis for “said sealed
pocket” in claim 88.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007