Appeal No. 2006-0445
Application 08/977,374
generated in a desired area 7 of a thermoplastic film, that is part of a laminate, by coating area 7
with a printed strip 6 of a dark color which generates heat when exposed to an infrared lamp
(e.g., col. 2, ll. 29-60, and col. 3, ll. 1-17).
With respect to claims 36 and 41, the examiner determines that, prima facie, it would
have been within the ordinary skill in this art to modify the heat shrinkable film of Heilman by
making the downward extending portion of the film opaque in order to absorb infrared radiation
to generate heat as taught by Amberg in the reasonable expectation of shrinking the film of
Heilman (answer, page 7). With respect to claim 41, the examiner further determines that
Heilman would have taught a roll of individual pieces of the film (answer, page 7).
With respect to claims 39, 42 and 46, the examiner determines that, prima facie, it would
have been within the ordinary skill in this art to modify the heat shrinkable film of the combined
teachings of Heilman and Amberg by making the downward extending portion of the film
opaque by printing with a dark coating that absorbs infrared radiation to generate heat as taught
by Anderson in the reasonable expectation of shrinking the film of Heilman (answer, page 7).
Appellant submits that Heilman would not have suggested that the downward extending
portion of the film is different than the remainder of the film with respect to absorbing radiant
heat, and there is no suggestion to combine skirt 15 of Amberg with the film of Heilman because
Amberg would have taught that the heat shrinkable skirt is a different material than the
remainder of the cover and the combination thereof with Heilman would result in a multilayer
film which would not function in Heilman’s apparatus (brief, pages 3-8 and 11-12). Appellant
contends that neither Heilman nor Amberg would have suggested the selective and sequential
use of two different methods of shrinking film to seal a container (id., page 8). Appellant further
submits that Anderson would have taught away from heating the downward extending portion of
Heilman’s film since Anderson does not shrink film but softens a portion of a laminate away
from the edge thereof, and thus, the combination of Heilman, Amberg and Anderson would not
teach coating a film to absorb radiation to heat shrink the film, and Anderson would have
suggested heating an area above the edge of the two layer film of Heilman and Amberg (id.,
pages 8-11 and 12). Appellant argues that Anderson is unrelated prior art because it is not
directed to shrinkwrap technology but to melting a thermoplastic laminate (id., page 10).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007