Ex parte BOULANGER - Page 9

          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               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007