Appeal No. 96-0501
Application 08/101,499
Rejection (1)
We will first consider this rejection with regard to claim
8, which reads:
8. A packing device comprising:
a container;
an article disposed within the container; and
at least one cushioning device disposed in the container
with the article, each such cushioning device having a sealed
flexible enclosure fabricated of a water soluble biodegradable
material, and a multitude of individual particles of water
soluble biodegradable fill material within the enclosure, said
enclosure having a conformable external surface which engages the
article and a wall which serves as a protective barrier to keep
the fill material out of direct contact with the article, the
pressure within the enclosure being lower than the pressure
outside the enclosure so that the fill material is compressed to
a volume on the order of 20 to 80 percent of the uncompressed
volume of said material.
The examiner’s position with regard to this rejection is, in
essence, that (answer, page 3):
It would have been obvious to use a
multitude of particles and to provide the
volume ratio as taught by Wright in the package
and method of Bauman ‘521 to allow the user to
control the amount of compression and to allow
the cushion to more closely conform to the
contents.
As for the requirement that the enclosure and fill material both
be a “water soluble biodegradable material,” the examiner asserts
that (answer, page 4):
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007