Appeal No. 2005-0279
Application No. 10/036,708
The reference set forth below is relied upon in the Section
102 and Section 103 rejections before us:
Wynne et al. (Wynne) 5,328,743 Jul. 12, 1994
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over, Wynne.1
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and by the examiner, we refer to the brief and to
the answer for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain these rejections.
It is the examiner’s fundamental position that the
reinforced shrink wrap defined by appealed independent claim 1
is indistinguishable from the reinforced shrink wrap disclosed by
Wynne. In this regard, the examiner recognizes that claim 1
1
1On page 2 of the brief, the appellants indicate that the appealed
claims will stand or fall together. Therefore, in assessing the
merits of the above noted rejections, we will focus on representative
independent claim 1 with which all other rejected claims will stand or
fall. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Also see former regulation 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003) as
well as current regulation 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007