Appeal No. 1998-0246
Application No. 08/397,536
With regard to sealing, the appellant's specification discloses, on page 27, that "suitable
bonding of the top and bottom portions with the wound dressings 68 therebetween is
accomplished by rolls 73 and 74, and rolls 75 and 76 in station 38." Further, Figure 14
illustrates two pairs of bonding rolls 73, 74 and 75, 76. Additionally, each of the original
claims recited a step of "sealing said package top and said package bottom on at least three
sides surrounding each cut piece of web." While this disclosure may provide support for
providing two sealing stations, the first station comprising the set of bonding rolls 73, 74 and
the second station comprising the set of bonding rolls 75, 76, it does not support sealing along
two sides of the cut web product at the first station, as recited in claim 19, and sealing along the
remaining two sides at the second station, as recited in claim 20.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 17, 19, 20 and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 17, 19 and 22-24 and reversed as to claim 20. A
new rejection of claims 19 and 20 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is entered
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or more claims, this decision
contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1,
1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007