Appeal No. 2005-1328
Application No. 09/734,792
juxtaposed to form a unit with the unit being shrink wrapped in
two or more films on opposite film sides of the unit. As
appreciated by the examiner, Limousin does not teach that one of
the films is opaque and the other is clear. However, we agree
with the examiner that Lundquist evidences that it was known in
the art to shrink wrap a combination of opaque and clear films
when the opacity of one of the films is desired. Accordingly,
although Limousin is silent with respect to the clarity or
opacity of the shrink wrapped films, we are confident that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make one
of the films clear for allowing observation of desired portions
of the packages being shrink wrapped, while making another film
opaque to obscure or hide other portions of the objects. In our
view, the problem solved by appellants, inadvertent reading of
bar codes on individual packages, would have been readily
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the solution
of utilizing an opaque film would have been readily apparent to
the artisan. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 244, 147 USPQ 420, 421
(CCPA 1965). Consequently, it follows that we find that the
subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Limousin
alone.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007