Appeal 2007-0343
Application 09/745,702
closing and sealing, wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive is used to protect
the tubular sheet material from inadvertent adherence to other surfaces (Ans.
4-5). Appellants argue Richards teaches away from the proposed
modification (App. Br. 5) and that, in view of Richards' expressed objective
to avoid complicated mechanical devices, the addition of adhesive via
Meissner's complicated bubble forming and rupturing technique would
contravene the intended purpose of Richards (App. Br. 7).
With respect to claim 10, the Examiner contends it would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to make the outlet opening and a portion
of the passageway in an oval shape, as the apparatus would perform equally
well with the outlet opening of a circular shape (Ans. 5). Appellants contend
that the oval or elliptical shape facilitates the use of the portable packaging
device and, thus, is not merely ornamental and without mechanical
functionality (App. Br. 11-12). In particular, Appellants point to page 3,
lines 31-34, of their Specification (Substitute Specification, filed June 23,
2003), which states that it has been found that an outlet opening and at least
a portion of the passageway of oval or elliptical shape can accommodate a
human hand more readily than a circular shape (Reply Br. 2).
In light of the above contentions, the issues before us are:
1. whether Richards discloses or suggests a cutting blade positioned
adjacent the outlet opening of the inner core, as called for in claims 1
and 10,
2. whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Appellants' invention, in view of the combined
teachings of Richards, Hamilton, and Meissner, to provide adhesive as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013