Ex Parte Saso et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1328                                                        
          Application No. 09/734,792                                                  

               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Limousin                           4,586,312      May  06, 1986             
          Lundquist et al. (Lundquist)       4,720,410      Jan. 19, 1988             
          Tsuchiya                           5,067,612      Nov. 26, 1991             
               Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a combination             
          comprising two or more packages that are shrink wrapped to form a           
          unit wherein one of the films of the shrink wrapping is opaque              
          while another film is clear.  According to appellants’                      
          specification, “[t]he opaque film is sufficiently resistant to              
          the transmission of light such that UPC bar codes present on the            
          individual packages cannot be read through the film by bar code             
          reading machines” (page 5, second paragraph).  The specification            
          explains that “use of the opaque film prevents the bar code                 
          reading machine from inadvertently reading one of the bar codes             
          for the individual packages and thereby falsely crediting the               
          manufacturer with shipment only of an individual package rather             
          than the multi-package unit” (id.).                                         
               Appealed claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 22, 24,              
          25, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Limousin in view of Lundquist.  Claims 2, 5, 8,           
          9, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being               

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007