Appeal No. 2001-1387
Application No. 08/715,210
Helms discloses a container closure 10 comprising an
overcap ring R and a peelable laminated structure 12. The
laminated structure consists of the following layers from top
to bottom: paperboard 16, a bond coating 22, an inductively-
heatable metal foil 20, and a heat-sealable coating 24. Of
particular interest is bond coating 22. Depending on whether
the foil 20 is to remain on or be removed from the container
when the overcap ring is taken off, the bond coating 22 may be
a tacky wax film, a weak adhesive, or a non-peelable adhesive
(see column 2, lines 24 and 25; and column 3, lines 27 through
57).
In proposing to combine Unipac or Peeters with Helms to
reject claim 1, the examiner concludes (see pages 2 and 4 in
the final rejection and page 4 in the answer) that it would
have been obvious in view of Helms to replace Unipac’s wax
adhesive or Peeters’ wax 21 with a pressure sensitive light
tack shearable adhesive of the sort required by claim 1. The
problem, however, is that Helms’ disclosure, and particularly
the portion thereof dealing with bond coating 22, does not
provide any factual support for this conclusion. In short,
Helms gives no indication that bond coating 22 might be a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007