Appeal No. 96-2297
Application 08/117,446
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 4
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to effect re-covering of the bloomed
meat product on a tray that is produced according to the
packaging method disclosed by Hirsch by following the known
practice of inserting same in a bag. In our opinion, the
incentive for this re-covering of the previously covered
package of Hirsch would have simply been for the expected
benefit of, for example, addressing a package leakage problem,
avoiding a possible leakage problem, or for carrying a
purchased product to one's home. Accordingly, we conclude
that the method of appellant's claim 1 would have been
obvious. As to the method step set forth in claim 2, we are
of the view that this step would have been fairly suggested by
the indication by Hirsch of the desirability of "thorough
circulation" (column 6, lines 46 through 51). Relative to
4The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007