Appeal No. 96-2297
Application 08/117,446
perceive a reasonable basis for concluding that appellant's
particular method would have been obvious. More specifically,
we are of the opinion that the applied patents (in particular,
the Sanborn patent) simply would not have motivated one of
ordinary skill to alter the disclosed method of Hirsch to
include a reclosable step to re-cover a red meat product after
blooming effects have occurred to "positively maintain and
prolong freshness of the meat product" (answer, page 2), the
rationale advanced by the examiner. The Sanborn disclosure is
not related to a method pertaining to the packaging of red
meat that is intended to be bloomed. Additionally, it appears
to us that an alteration of the Hirsch method, as proposed,
would appear to run counter to the patentee's objective
(column 2, lines 15 through 24) of having the exposed gas
permeable film layer effect an "integral, sealed protective
package [that] will still surround the product after removal
of the outer gas impermeable layer, thereby continuing to
provide full protection against contamination". For these
reasons, the examiner's rejection cannot be supported.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007