Appeal No. 1999-0441
Application No. 08/676,454
written description of the invention, the circumstance that,
broadly speaking, the gluing points 8 of Pigneul have a finite
dimension in the longitudinal direction of the main body
portion does not justify the examiner’s strained and
unreasonable position that the reference structure corresponds
to the claimed subject matter. In short, we can think of no
circumstance under which the artisan, consistent with the
appellant’s specification, would construe the language of
claims 1, 10 and 18 describing the bonding of the folded over
barrier layer to the cover layer as reading on Pigneul with
its pairs of discrete gluing points 8.
This being the case we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 13 and 17, as being
anticipated by Pigneul. Likewise, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over
Pigneul, since Pigneul also does not teach or suggest
modifying Pigneul in a matter that would have resulted in the
“folding” step of that claim.
As to the standing § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 14-16
as being unpatentable over Pigneul in view of Lavash, we have
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007