Appeal No. 2006-0445
Application 08/977,374
that extends downward over the rim of a container to which infrared radiation can be directly
applied to heat the downward extending portion in conventional manner, shrinking the film
around the container rim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
determine conventional means for this purpose. This person would have known that infrared
radiant energy would pass through transparent thermoplastic material as seen from the
transparent film and the opaque film which are heat shrunk in different manner and alternatively
used for skirt 15 in Amberg (e.g., col. 3, ll. 49-61 and col. 4, l. 44, to col. 5, l. 2) and from the
transparent film which contains an opaque strip 6 for heating purposes in Anderson (e.g., col. 2,
ll. 29-42 and 49-63, and col. 3, ll. 1-14), and indeed, appellant has not disclosed that he was the
first to recognize this (see specification, page 12, ll. 18-20). Thus, this person would have found
in Amberg alone and as combined with Anderson the teaching that an opaque section on a
transparent thermoplastic material, which can be heat shrinkable, will absorb infrared radiation
to the extent that the thermoplastic material is changed by shrinking or melting. Therefore, we
are of the view that one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized from Amberg alone
and as combined with Anderson that the application of an opaque coating to a transparent
thermoplastic film will cause infrared radiation to absorb infrared radiation, directly heating the
film, and thus, would have applied such a coating to the portion of the transparent, heat
shrinkable film of the cover of Heilman that extends downward over the rim of the container in
order to directly heat and thus shrink the film in that area in conventional manner.
We are not convinced otherwise by appellant’s arguments. We agree with the examiner
that it is not necessary to a finding of obviousness that the structure of the thermoplastic film
vis-à-vis the remainder of the cover or laminate, and the position of the opaque material on the
film in Amberg and/or Anderson must be read into the structure of the film of Heilman, as
appellant contends. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.”). Indeed, the teachings of Amberg alone and as combined with Anderson would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art to apply an opaque coating to a
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007