Appeal No. 97-0816
Application 08/204,715
(CCPA 1981).
As acknowledged by the examiner, the container disclosed by
Arvidson does not meet the limitations in claim 1 requiring that
“said polypropylene and regrind layers contain at least about 5%
by weight and about 1% by weight respectively but no more than
about 8% by weight of titanium dioxide, said titanium dioxide
serving to reduce the extent of light transmission through said
wall by at least about 99.5%.” In this regard, Arvidson does not
disclose the presence of titanium dioxide in any of the container
wall layers. The examiner’s reliance on Baird, Yum and
Kirshenbaum to cure this deficiency in Arvidson is not well
taken.
Arguably, the combined teachings of the applied references
would have suggested the addition of titanium dioxide to one of
the layers of Arvidson’s container wall to attain a degree of
opacity for the sake of: (1) enhancing the appearance of the
container as in Baird; (2) shielding the contents of the
container from view as in Yum; and/or (3) preventing spoilage of
the contents from light waves as in Kirshenbaum. There is
nothing in the combined teachings of these references, however,
which would have suggested the addition of titanium dioxide to
Arvidson’s container wall so as to meet the rather specific
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007