Appeal No. 2006-0445
Application 08/977,374
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
cover for sealing an open-topped container and the claimed roll of heat shrinkable film for
forming such a cover encompassed by appealed claims 36 and 41, respectively, would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Heilman and Amberg, and the claimed cover for sealing
an open-topped container encompassed by appealed claim 39 and 42 and the claimed roll of heat
shrinkable film for forming such a cover encompassed by appealed claim 44 would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Heilman, Amberg and Anderson4 to one of ordinary
skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie
case of obviousness has been established by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence
of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to
the weight of appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief. See generally, In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In order to review the examiner’s application of prior art to appealed claims 36, 39, 41,
42 and 44, we must first interpret these claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification, including the
drawings, unless another meaning is intended by appellant as established in the written
description of the specification, and without reading into the claims any limitation or particular
embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192-95,
4 A discussion of the “admissions” by appellant is not necessary to our decision with respect to
either ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-04, 190 USPQ 425, 426-28
(CCPA 1976).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007