Appeal No. 1998-1382
Application No. 08/330,717
view of Erb, Sumitomo, Bacehowski, and Stanley. (Id. at pp.
7-8.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Keilman, the principal prior art reference, teaches that
various means for venting of a conventional culture bottle
generally provide a source of contamination of the culture.
(Column 1, lines 15-17.) As a solution to this problem,
Keilman describes a potentially disposable plastic roller
bottle, which does not require a mechanical vent to provide
high enough levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide transfer into
and out of the container for aerobic culturing processes.
(Column 1, lines 32-47.) According to Keilman, the bottle has
flexible plastic walls, which may be made of a plastic
formulation, preferably a polymer blend. (Column 1, lines 50-
53; column 2, lines 4-5 and 25-44.)
The examiner appears to admit that Keilman does not teach
the multi-layer film as recited in the appealed claims.
(Examiner’s answer, page 4.) To account for this difference,
the examiner relies on the teachings of Erb, Sumitomo, and
Bacehowski. (Id. at pages 4-6.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007