Ex parte David et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 1998

08121668 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 15, 1993, which is a1
continuation of Application 07/781,515, filed October 22, 1991 (Abandoned).
1
Paper No. 22
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JOHN R. DAVID,
DEE L. JOHNSON, KENNETH F. KNOLL,
CURTIS LARSON, GRAHAM E. THOMS
AND RAYMOND D. ZACHRISON
______________
Appeal No. 95-4587
Application 08/121,6681
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before RONALD H. SMITH, PAK and OWENS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RONALD H. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-4587
Application 08/121,668
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 4-6.
Claims 1-3 and 17-22 have been canceled, and claims 7-16 have
been indicated as allowable.
The subject matter of the appealed claims relates to a
method of unitizing and sealing a plurality of containers.
Claim 4 is illustrative of the appealed claims and reads as
follows:
4. A method of unitizing and sealing a plurality of
containers comprising:
placing on each of said containers a double-backed
adhesive tape structure having a first strip portion for
providing one exposed surface with an adhesive thereon and a
second strip portion for providing a second adhesive coated
surface that is adhered to said container for sealing said
container;
stacking said containers together with the exposed
adhesive surface of said tape structure on each container
being adhered to at least a portion of the exposed adhesive
surface of said tape on an adjacent container.
Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling disclosure. The
examiner urges in support of the rejection that the disclosure
is enabling only for claims limited in accordance with the
tenor of the specification to "multipartite" tape structures
Appeal No. 95-4587
Application 08/121,668
3
such as illustrated in Figure 1. The examiner urges further
that there is "absolutely no concrete support in the
disclosure for the two strip adhesive tape structure now
claimed." We will not sustain this rejection.
We agree with appellant that original claim 4 recites a
tape structure with substantially the same scope as appealed
claim 4, and since it was part of the original disclosure, it
provides adequate support, i.e., written description, for
claims 4-6. Nor has the examiner provided any evidence or
cogent reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art could
not practice the invention of claim 4 without undue
experimentation. Since we are in substantial agreement with
appellants' position as set forth in the brief, we adopt that
position as our own.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
RONALD H. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 95-4587
Application 08/121,668
4
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Mark W. Binder
3M Office of Intellectual
Property Counsel
P. O. Box 33427
St. Paul, MN 55133-3427
Appeal No. 95-4587
Application 08/121,668
5
RHS/cam