Appeal No. 96-0501
Application 08/101,499
packaging material due to relative movement between adjacent
members in contact with one another” (col. 1, lines 56 to 60).
We consider this rejection to be well taken. Holden’s
disclosure of the advantages of interlocking fill particles would
readily have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
use of particles of such shape for the fill particles of Wright.
Rejection (2) will be sustained.
Rejections (3) and (4)
Claim 34 reads:
34. In a method of packaging an article in a
container, the steps of:
placing a multitude of particles of biodegradable fill
material which in the aggregate form a compressible body in a
flexible enclosure of biodegradable material which has an
external surface for engagement with the article and a wall which
serves as a protective barrier to keep the fill material out of
direct contact with the article;
compressing the body of fill material outside the container
to a shape corresponding to the contour of the article and the
interior of the container; and
placing the compressed body of fill material and the article
into the container with the external surface of the enclosure
engaging the article and the wall of the enclosure isolating the
article from direct contact with the fill material.
The rejection of claim 34 as unpatentable over Gianakos in
view of Boeri or Starcevich was a new ground of rejection made in
the examiner’s answer. In response, the appellant filed a reply
brief and an “Amendment Under Rule 193(b)” (Paper No. 16),
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007