Appeal No. 2004-1831
Application No. 09/338,095
Ste[i]dinger. The first and second edges would
therefore be separably attached, along the line of
perforation.
The examiner’s rationale is fatally flawed. Although
Yoshino may disclose a step of cutting his corona-discharged
tubular film, the examiner’s proposed replacement of this cutting
operation with a perforating operation would not yield the here
claimed invention. This is because patentee’s cutting step is
for the purpose of transforming the tubular article shown in
Figure 2 into a sheet of film which is then provided with
adhesive tape and folded into the shape depicted in Figure 1.
From our perspective, replacing Yoshino’s cut with a perforation
of the type taught by Steidinger would not in any way alter the
aforementioned tape-applying and film-folding steps of Yoshino.
Thus, if Yoshino’s tubular article shown in Figure 2 were
provided with a perforation rather than a cut, an artisan would
have severed this perforation in order to then perform the tape-
applying and film-folding steps pursuant to patentee’s teaching.
Indeed, it seemingly would be impossible to perform these last
mentioned steps without first severing the perforation.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear to us that the
combined teachings of Yoshino and Steidinger would not have led
to a roll of masking material having first and second edges
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007