Appeal No. 2005-0279
Application No. 10/036,708
the answer, this table does not provide a proper comparison of
the appellants’ claimed and patentee’s disclosed products since,
for example, the thicknesses of the compared tie and adhesive
layers are completely different. As a consequence, the differing
yield results, upon which the appellants base their aforenoted
arguments, are without probative value.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer, we fully share the examiner’s determination that the
reinforced shrink wrap defined by appealed claim 1 is
indistinguishable from the reinforced shrink wrap of Wynne.
Thus, on the record before us, the claim 1 shrink wrap including
the tie layer and the characteristics thereof appear to be
identical to patentee’s shrink wrap including the adhesive layer
and characteristics thereof. Therefore, we consider the record
before us to evince a prima facie case of anticipation. This
record likewise evinces a prima facie case of obviousness based
on the proposition that lack of novelty is the ultimate of
obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007