Appeal No. 2002-1850
Application 08/288,574
We have of course fully assessed the argument advanced by
appellant (main brief, pages 10 through 26) relative to the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). However, we are
not convinced thereby that the examiner erred in making this
rejection and concluding identity between the claimed subject
matter and the “final product” of Korlatzki (answer, pages 8 and
9). For the reasons given earlier, we do not share appellant’s
point of view (reply brief, page 5) that the term (formable) meat
in claim 1 would be understood to refer to “solid animal flesh as
such” or “whole pieces of meat” (Meixner affidavit, section II).
Contrary to the view advocated by appellant that the concept of a
permanently elastic film is completely contrary to the teachings
of Korlatzki (main brief, page 15), we pointed out above that the
basic highly elastic multi-layer teaching of Korlatzki, setting
aside the optional biaxially stretching feature, does address a
permanently elastic film, and appellant has not proven otherwise.
The Meixner affidavit (Sections V. and VI.) focuses on frozen
elasticity, the consequence of the application of optional
biaxially stretching, and thus fails to address the basic highly
elastic multi-layer teaching of Korlatzki. Similarly, declarant
Langowski’s focus on effects (frozen elastic properties) of
optional biaxially stretching (Sections 2 and 3) does not take
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007