Appeal No. 2001-0368
Application No. 09/008,675
with, a broader construction of the term “wrapping” than
appellants would have us ascribe to it when used in the claims.
As requested by appellants, we have considered each of the
claims at issue individually. Having done so, we find that
appellants have made a viable argument for separate patentability
only with respect to claims 13 and 21. Appellants correctly
point out that the “spiral wrap” embodiment of claims 13 and
21 is not anticipated by the “airtight bag or envelope”
embodiment of Perkins. Accordingly, we modify our original
decision by reversing the rejection of claims 13 and 21.
With regard to claim 24, although Perkins does not
explicitly call for use of a vapor-impervious film or “cocoon”
composed of multiple layers, in our opinion it would have been
obvious, within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to employ layers
of different materials to obtain the additive benefits of each,
or to employ multiple layers of the same material in order to
obtain a stronger or more air tight barrier. Since we now rely
upon the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as to claim 24, the
rejection of claim 24 should be regarded as a new ground of
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1.196(b).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007