Appeal No. 1998-2029 Page 6 Application No. 08/258,643 perimetric edge to the sheet to close the pouch in a fluid tight manner. The appellant argues (brief, p. 10) that the applied prior art does not teach the limitation that the pouch has a thermoplastic layer sealed to the sheet about a perimetric edge which completely surrounds the fenestration as set forth in independent claim 7. The examiner did not respond to this argument. After reviewing the teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Idris, Morris and Staller), we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant that the applied prior art does not teach the limitation that the pouch has a thermoplastic layer sealed to the sheet about a perimetric edge which completely surrounds the fenestration as set forth in independent claim 7. Thus, the applied prior art does not2 2The appellant appears to have admitted (specification, p. 9) that drapes that meet this limitation are described in U.S. Patent No. 5,161,544 (the subject matter of this patent appears to have been published on September 18, 1991 as European Patent Application 0 447 217 A1 and therefore would (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007