Appeal No. 2001-2229
Application No. 09/346,226
plastic film would appear to be an obvious change of size of
the gift bag” (answer, page 4), and that
[t]o modify the bag of Dixon incorporating the
conventional biaxial shrink film, shrink temperature
of shrink film, and reclosing structure of plastic
film bags as described by Ashmore, Rosenblatt and
Watanabe would have been obvious in order to provide
these features to the bag to derive the expected
improved individual results as expected to one of
ordinary skill in the art [answer, page 4].
One facet of the appellants’ position to the contrary
focuses on the limitation in claims 1 and 8 requiring the
sheet of heat shrinkable film to have a balanced shrink ratio
in x and y orientations to provide a uniform and consistent
shrink profile. The argument by the appellants that the
combined teachings of the applied references would not have
suggested a gift bag of the sort claimed having this
characteristic is persuasive.
The specification in the instant application defines a
balanced shrink ratio as meaning “that the plastic shrinks an
equal amount in both the x and y (machine and transverse)
orientations of the film” (page 8). The specification also 1
1Words defined in the specification must be given the
same meaning when used in a claim. McGill, Inc. v. John Zink
Co., 736 F.2d 666, 674, 221 USPQ 944, 949 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007