Appeal No. 2006-1760
Application No. 09/728,697
the another” (page 11 of principal brief, 1 paragraph).st
However, as properly pointed out by the examiner, appellants
mischaracterize Underwood as being limited to packaging materials
for gum and cigarettes. Rather, Underwood teaches that although
tear tapes were known for opening wrappings for gum and
cigarettes, there was a need for finding tear tape for typical
thermoplastic film, particularly, polyethylene film that can be
used as wrapping or packaging material, since polyethylene film
is more extensible than cellulosic film (see column 1, 2nd
paragraph). Hence, we find that Underwood is directed towards a
tear tape that can be used with polyethylene film that has a
higher tear resistance than the cellophane that is used for gum
and cigarettes. Appellants claim linear low density polyethylene
as the tear-resistant film material, and Underwood discloses a
tearable tape strip that is suitable for linear low-density
polyethylene film. As stated above, it is our view that one of
ordinary skill would have had to resort to only routine
experimentation to determine the suitable puncture-propagation
tear resistance for the polyethylene film of Underwood.
We also concur with the examiner that Leseman evidences the
obviousness of using tear reinforced tear tapes as an improvement
over the oriented flat tapes of Underwood. Appellants maintain
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007