Appeal No. 1999-0431
Application 08/541,135
intended uses [brief, pages 8-14]. The examiner disagrees
with these arguments [answer, pages 6-7].
We agree with the position argued by appellant.
Although Guzay recognizes that covers using physical
elasticity may have uses in common with elastic sleeves which
are chemically shrinkable, we can find no reason why the
artisan would start with the two sleeves of Guzay if the
covering were to be done using a chemical shrink. The cover
in Guzay uses an inner sleeve and an outer sleeve only to
permit the outer sleeve to be pulled relative to the inner
sleeve to achieve its final form. This final form does not
have two sleeves. There would be no point to starting with
two sleeves in Guzay if the sleeves are not going to be pulled
relative to each other. Since a chemical shrink cover would
have no use for the sleeves of Guzay, we can find no reason
for using the two sleeves of Guzay in the manner proposed by
the examiner. The most that might be suggested by Guzay and
Clemence is that a single sleeve of shrinkable material could
be used in place of Guzay’s sleeve 12 in its final form as
shown in Figures 8 and 11.
Thus, we agree with appellant that the invention of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007