Appeal No. 2006-1760
Application No. 09/728,697
We are also not persuaded by appellants’ argument that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to the bag
materials of Osborn to make the boxes of Riddell. As explained
by the examiner, Riddell does not describe his purpose as making
boxes but is directed to pliable material that can be wrapped
around a product (see paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of
answer).
We now turn to the examiner’s Section 103 rejection over
Underwood in view of Osborne and Leseman. Underwood, like
appellants, discloses the use of a tearable tape strip having a
tabbed central portion that is tearable with respect to its
longitudinal edges to tear an opening in a film of linear low-
density polyethylene. While Underwood is silent with respect to
the particular puncture-propagation tear resistance of the
polyethylene film, we agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the
conventional polyethylene film of Osborn that has the claimed
puncture-propagation tear resistance. Appellants contend that
“[o]ne seeking to select heat sealable materials for tightly
wrapping an article, such as gum or cigarettes, would not look to
tarps or sacks closed with lap seams as disclosed by Osborn, nor
would they expect tear tapes for one material to function with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007