Appeal No. 2005-1328
Application No. 09/734,792
As for separately rejected claim 2, we find that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ the known expedient of gripping openings on the ends of
Limousin’s shrink wrapping. We concur with the examiner that
figure 13 of Tsuchiya evidences the obviousness of such gripping
openings. We are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art
would need only to resort to routine experimentation to determine
the optimum locations for providing the gripping openings. While
appellants contend that Limousin does not teach the claimed
placement of perforations and apertures, claim 2 fails to recite
any perforations. Also, the specific location of Limousin’s
perforations are contingent upon the placement of the wrapping on
the conveyor during heating.
As for separately argued claim 20, appellants present the
same arguments discussed above. Again, it is our view that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
determine the optimum location of perforations and gripping
openings in shrink wrappings of the type disclosed by Limousin.
To the extent that Limousin teaches a specific advantage for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007