Appeal No. 2002-1803
Application 09/288,775
harden into a relatively rigid protective array (see Sperry at
column 6, line 27 et seq.).
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the answer),
Sperry does not respond to the limitations in independent claims
1 and 8, and the corresponding limitations in independent claims
16 and 21, pertaining to the perforation of the tubing along a
transversely extending tear line between the formed cushion
section and the next successive section. The examiner’s reliance
on Hoover to overcome this deficiency is not well founded.
Hoover discloses a method and apparatus for producing
dunnage in the form of inflated plastic pillows. The embodiment
shown in Figure 4 involves a roll 70 of plastic stock material 52
sealed along its longitudinal edges 52 and 56, feed rolls 72 and
74 for drawing the stock material from the roll 70, a retractable
inflation needle 80 for inflating the material, a seal head 76
and backup 78 for laterally sealing the inflated material to form
pillows, a perforation head 90 for forming perforations between
the pillows, and a cutting station 92 for cutting across the
lateral seals to form pillow units which can be placed in
cartons.
In proposing to combine Sperry and Hoover to reject the
appealed claims, the examiner submits that “[i]t would have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007