Appeal No. 1996-1992
Application 07/898,373
the ordinary artisan to have varied the surface ratios based upon the desired design
choice used to differentiate encased products.” (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).
Firth, like Grabauskas, also exemplifies prior art casing. Appellants on page 10 of the
specification discuss Firth. The appellants note the following:
A window dyed casing has also been disclosed in U.S. Patent
2,857,283. This patent discloses use of masking means on tubing prior to
subjecting a clear tubing to a dye or combination of chemicals which may
develop color. The masking means prevent coloration of the masked portion
by chemical or mechanical means to produce a seamless casing having a
clear longitudinal portion through which the contents of the casing can be
visually examined. A casing in which the major area of its outer surface is
dyed is disclosed. Such dye is applied to the surface only and does not
extend throughout the thickness of casing wall and such dye is only applied
to the casing after formation of the tube.
The examiner on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer notes that “The reference (Firth)
fails to meet the claims in that the dye is only coated on the surface and is not continuously
dispersed throughout the casing.” The examiner in relying on “Appellants’ disclosed prior
art” to show the obviousness of dispersing the coating through the casing noted that “page
8 of the specification, lines 9-20, sets forth a process for dyeing a casing wherein the dye
is injected prior to extrusion in order that the dye will be dispersed throughout the casing”.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 3). The examiner in the sentence bridging pages 3 and 4 of the
Examiner’s Answer took the position that “uniformly dispersing the dye throughout the
casing in Firth et al. would have been prima facie obvious to achieve a dyed casing with a
more permanent dye.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007