Appeal No. 1998-1825
Application No. 08/658,014
in the rejection of these claims, but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of Huck in view of Asar
noted above. Accordingly, the standing § 103(a) rejection of
these claims also cannot be sustained.
With regard to independent claims 11 and 12, we note that
these claims are directed to an apparatus for producing filmic
packaging material having a teartape adhered thereto (claim
11), and a dispenser for supplying a teartape (claim 12).
Both of these claims include limitations like those found in
claim 8 discussed above, i.e., a support means for receiving a
reel of the teartape so that the reel can rotate as tape is
drawn from the reel by said moving packaging material, and a
brake means provided to reduce the speed of rotation of the
reel depending on the tension of the tape. It follows from
our treatment of those limitations in claim 8 that we will
also not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Huck and Asar.
Claim 13 is dependent from claim 12 and includes all of
the limitations thereof. Accordingly, the standing § 103(a)
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007