Appeal No. 96-0501
Application 08/101,499
it obvious to employ for the film of the second enclosure of
Wright a polymer which is water-soluble and biodegradable.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the subject
matter recited in claim 8 would have been prima facie obvious
over the applied prior art.
Claim 24 falls with its parent claim 8, inasmuch as the fill
material disclosed by Starcevich is “starch based,” as recited.
Claim 30 is drawn to a cushion for use in packaging an
article, and does not recite that the biodegradable material is
water soluble. We conclude that it is unpatentable for the same
reasons as claim 8.
Claim 31 recites that the fill material consists of, inter
alia, “plant fibers.” This limitation reads on the grain
disclosed by Starcevich.
Claim 32 recites that the enclosure material is selected
from one of various biodegradable materials. Since we consider
that it would have been obvious to make the second enclosure of
Wright out of a film of a biodegradable polymer, we further
consider that it would have been obvious to select a known
polymer for that purpose. In re Leshin, supra.
Claim 33 is drawn to a method of packaging an article in a
container. All the steps thereof are generally disclosed by
Wright at col. 7, line 33 to col. 8, line 39, except that (i) the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007