Appeal No. 2003-0574
Application No. 09/568,616
therefore conclude that the claims provide adequate notification of the metes and bounds
of the claimed subject matter.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief, the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
II. The Rejection under Section 102
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejection of claims
1, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 20 are not well founded. Our reasons appear below. We will limit
our discussion to the independent claims, i.e., claims 11, 13 and 21.
Murray describes a multiple layer packaging sheet material capable of holding
caynoacrylate-type products and having barrier properties to the passage of matter
through the sheet material. (Col. 1). According to the Examiner, “Figures 1 and 2 show
three and four layer structures respectively with all the layers in contact with adjacent
layers and being formed of different materials.” (Final Rejection, paper no. 18, p. 3).
Anticipation under § 102 requires that the identical invention that is claimed was
previously known to others and thus is not new. Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation
v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007