Appeal No. 2004-1333
Application 09/969,190
In addition, appellants have indicated that claims 2 through 19
are to stand or fall with claim 1. Accordingly, we will treat
claims 1, 20 and 21 in our discussions below and treat claims 2
through 19 as standing or falling with claim 1.
In responding to the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Wynne,
appellants have pointed to the same limitation in each of the
independent claims relating to
a shaped, thermoplastic, substantially gas and water vapor
impermeable outer cladding, and a shaped, thermoplastic,
substantially gas and water vapor impermeable inner
cladding,
urging that Wynne does not show shaped inner and outer claddings,
and that because the examiner considers the metal foil layer of
barrier film material (41) of Wynne’s vacuum insulating members
to be part of the inner and outer claddings therein, the inner
and outer claddings of Wynne cannot be considered thermoplastic
claddings as claimed in the instant application.
For essentially the same reasons as set forth in the
examiner’s answer, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Looking,
for example, to appellants’ claim 20, we note that Wynne
discloses (in Fig. 5) a housing/container (90) that may be used
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007