Appeal No. 1996-1801
Application 08/142,049
including the step of pressurizing an internal volume of said container and hermetically sealing said
container with a closure;
(d) encasing said container within a first sealing layer forming a single layer hermetically sealed
container enclosure;
(e) encasing said single layer hermetically sealed container enclosure within a second sealing
layer forming a second layer hermetically sealed container enclosure;
(f) inserting said second layer sealed container enclosure into a carton member lined with a
third sealing layer, tying one end section of said third sealing layer to form a closed interior volume
therein, and closing said carton member to form a closed shipping package; and,
(g) externally irradiating said closed shipping package at a predetermined radiation level for a
predetermined time interval for combinedly and simultaneously sterilizing said chemical composition,
said first and second hermetically sealed container enclosures and said closed interior volume defined
by said third sealing layer.
The appealed claims as represented by claim 1 are drawn to a method of sterilization in which2
a container containing a chemical composition under pressure is successively hermetically enclosed
within two enclosures to form a multi-enclosure package that is inserted into the liner of a carton, which
liner is closed to form a third enclosure. The carton is closed to form a shipping package which is
externally irradiated at a predetermined level to sterilize each of the enclosures and the chemical
composition contained therein. According to appellant, the method provides, inter alia, “a carton
containing sterilized containers may be shipped to a relatively contaminated area and removed to a
relatively contamination free area while still maintaining a double hermetic seal around the sterilized
containers” (specification page 2; see also, e.g., pages 7-8).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Pomerantz et al. (Pomerantz) 2,904,392 Sep. 15, 1959
Falciani et al. (Falciani) 4,700,838 Oct. 20, 1987
Anthony et al. (Anthony) 4,714,595 Dec. 22, 1987
Anderson 4,896,768 Jan. 30, 1990
Bacehowski et al. (Bacehowski) 4,968,624 Nov. 6, 1990
2Appellant states in the brief (page 6) that the appealed claims “define a single group rejected under §
103.” Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 14 with respect to the respective
grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 advanced by the examiner on appeal. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) (1995).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007