Appeal 2007-0343
Application 09/745,702
trailing portion of the tubular film to form the
closed packaged article.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Meissner US 3,111,796 Nov. 26, 1963
Richards US 4,869,049 Sep. 26, 1989
Hamilton US 5,662,758 Sep. 02, 1997
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6-
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Richards in view of
Hamilton and Meissner.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed April 29, 2005). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed March 31, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed June 29,
2005).
THE ISSUES
In rejecting claims 1 and 6-9, the Examiner finds that Richards
discloses the claimed subject matter, with the exception of adhesive material
on the outer surface of the tubular sheet (Ans. 3). Appellants have contested
this finding, arguing that Richards also lacks a cutting blade "positioned
adjacent the outlet opening of the inner core, for cutting through a trailing
portion of the tubular film to form the closed packaged article" (App. Br. 7).
Although Appellants appear to have dropped that argument (Reply Br. 1),
we will address it as an issue in this decision in the interest of completeness.
The Examiner contends it would have been obvious, in view of the
teachings of Meissner and Hamilton, to modify Richards' tubular sheet by
applying thereto an adhesive as taught by Hamilton providing an effective
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013