Appeal No. 1998-2113
Application No. 08/685,478
With regard to claim 7, the examiner relies on the
Yourgalite patent for a teaching of wrapping a foil around
a package. Reliance on this patent, however, is improper
because it has not been included in the statement of the
rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3,
166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). For our review of the
rejection of claim 7, we shall therefore confine ourselves
to the prior art set forth in the statement of the
rejection, namely the Netherlands reference and the
Burleson reference. Neither of these references teaches
nor suggests the claimed concept of winding a tightening
foil band around an inner package and at least a portion of
a base for the inner package. Accordingly, we must reverse
the ' 103 rejection of claim 7.
The examiner=s decision rejecting the appealed claims
is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 6 and 8
through 22, but is reversed with respect to claim 7.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007