Appeal 2006-2805
Application 09/843,990
money on production, the Examiner's basic premise that the admitted prior
art and Gill are "concerned with the same technology" it fundamentally
flawed (page 6 of Answer, first paragraph). Simply put, we do not agree that
the heat-sealing packaging of the admitted prior art involves the same
technology as the bonding of fabrics disclosed by Gill.
The Examiner's further citation of Oberle for the features of claim 28
does not resolve the deficiency in the combination of the admitted prior art
and Gill discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED
cam
CRYOVAC, INC.
Sealed Air Corp.
P. O. Box 464
Duncan, SC 29334
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: November 3, 2007