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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHARLES R. OCHELTREE
and BRET A. TRIMMER
______________
Appeal No. 1996-3802
Application 08/296,790
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 3 through 5 and 7 through 10, and refusing to allow claim 2 as amended subsequent to the final
rejection, which are all of the claims in the application. Claim 9 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
9. An improved white food casing comprising regenerated cellulose containing titanium dioxide pigment
in a weight ratio of less then 0.5 to regenerated cellulose in the casing and less than 15 grams per square
meter of casing and containing a water insoluble violet pigment in an amount of less than 0.1 percent of
the titanium dioxide in the casing and from about 0.3 to about 1.2 milligrams per square meter of casing,
the quantity of combined titanium dioxide and water insoluble violet pigment being sufficient to impart an
optical density of at least about 0.6, said titanium dioxide pigment and violet pigment being uniformly
dispersed in the regenerated cellulose without agglomeration.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007