Court Opinion

ID: 9449042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:53:41.975384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:39.867678
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge,
with whom WORLEY, Chief Judge, joins (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Although I agree with the majority concerning claims 32, 33 and 34, I disagree with reference to claims 35 and 38.
As I understand appellant’s disclosure, the outer wrapping is adhered to the inner body of the container except along a helical circumferential line over which line a ribbon is placed in such a manner that when the tear strip in the outer wrapping is unwound both the inner body and the outer wrapping will open along the helical line. If this be true, language claiming such a structure would more accurately describe the structure by stat-*819perposed about said inner body and attached thereto except along a narrow claim 35, “an outer * * * wrapping superposed about said inner body and detachably held therearomd * * [Emphasis mine.] I do not think of two bodies which are glued together except along a narrow strip as being “detachably held therearound.” [Emphasis mine.] helical strft-rather than, as stated in ing-an outer reinforcing wrapping su~