Appeal No. 2005-0558 Page 4
Application No. 10/280,994
. . . that were cut to 4 in x 5/8 in . . . that were pre-
stretched using penetrometer probes” having various selected
diameters to form the protruding portion or nipple (275) of the
lids. It is further indicated on page 28 that, after pre-
stretching, the lids were cut from the strip using a 6 mm Acu-
punch™ and subsequently attached close to the opening in the
primary end seal (272) of the manufactured seed. The examiner is
apparently of the view that this disclosure in Hartle teaches the
method of attaching an end seal to a manufactured seed as set
forth in claims 18 through 20 on appeal, and more particularly
that the “ablating” step of appellant’s claim 18 is readable on
the cutting of the lids from the strip of Parafilm™ M laboratory
film (answer, pages 3-4).
For the reasons aptly set forth by appellant in the brief
and reply brief, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Like appellant,
it is clear to us that the disclosure in Hartle relied upon by
the examiner does not teach or suggest the method set forth in
claim 18 on appeal. Even assuming that the cutting of the lids
from the strip of Parafilm™ M laboratory film in Hartle somehow
broadly corresponds to appellant’s step of “ablating a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007