Appeal No. 2006-1300
Application No. 08/203,672
have furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to provide the Yanase ‘006 bag with an
information section as recited in claim 20 in order to
safely carry out Yanase’s stated desire to write
information on the bag after it is filled.
Thus, the combined teachings of Yanase ‘006 and Graham
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in claim 20 and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Consequently, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 20 as being unpatentable over Yanase ‘006 in view of
Graham.
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 21-23 as being unpatentable
over Yanase ‘006 in view of Graham since the appellants
have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity,
thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent
claim 20 (see In re Nielson, supra).
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 24 as being unpatentable
over Yanase ‘006 in view of Graham.
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007