Appeal No. 1999-0509
Application No. 08/693,585
wrapped around the maximum diameter sector of the elliptical container. Since the
maximum diameter sector of the elliptical container is relatively narrow, major portions
of the label extending at both ends beyond the container=s sector of maximum diameter
will necessarily be spaced from the container to remain unattached to the container prior
to heat shrinking the label onto the container. Thus, Dickey=s disclosure inherently meets
the limitations defined in clauses Ab@ and Ac@ of claim 35.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we are satisfied that the Dickey patent expressly
or inherently discloses each limitation in claim 35 to thus anticipate the subject matter of
claim 35. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477, 44 USPQ2d at 1431. We will therefore
sustain the ' 102(b) rejection of claim 35.
We will also sustain the ' 103 rejection of claim 35 since anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601, 607
(CCPA 1978).
Even if is assumed for the sake of argument that Dickey lacks an inherent
disclosure of the method limitations discussed supra, we nonetheless are of the opinion
that the subject matter of claim 35 would have been obvious within the meaning of ' 103.
As is evident from Figure 2 of Dickey=s drawings, the maximum diameter portion of the
container is closest to the label on the vacuum drum 36 so that the label will be brought
without difficulty into contact with the maximum diameter portion, while allowing the
regions of the label extending beyond the maximum diameter portion to remain out of
contact with the container until heat is applied to heat shrink the label. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that this method of attachment is for the self-
evident purpose of simplifying the wrapping operation. In this regard, skill in the art is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007