Appeal No. 2006-0408
Application No. 09/775,451
For a complete discussion of the contrary viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the examiner concerning this
rejection, we refer to the Brief and Reply Brief as well as to
the Supplemental Examiner's Answer mailed May 20, 2005.1
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the above-
noted rejection.
As properly argued by the appellant and acknowledged by the
examiner, Sugimoto discloses a bag (for enclosing articles such
as furniture to be packaged) having inside and outside surfaces
or layers which possess respective coefficients of friction that
are the reverse of those claimed by the appellant. The examiner
attempts to eliminate this deficiency in his conclusion of
obviousness which is expressed in the paragraph bridging pages 5
and 6 of the Supplemental Answer as follows:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have switched the outer and inner layers in the
film for packaging of Sugimoto . . . depending on the
end-use of the product, in order to produce a bag with
an outer layer with a higher coefficient of friction
1As a matter of clarification, the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer replaces the Answer mailed December 12, 2003 which failed
to comply with certain established guidelines regarding a proper
Examiner's Answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007