Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
(specification, page 1, lines 12-25). We still further find
that it was known that semiconductor wafers packages made
entirely of transparent materials would allow for optical
confirmation of its contents without opening, but that such
packages would be inferior to bags made from the above noted
opaque material in that packages made entirely of transparent
material typically would have a higher moisture transmission
rate (specification, page 1, lines 25-30). Turning to
Salfisberg, this reference teaches packages “that have one
wall or a portion thereof formed of flexible transparent
material through which the contents of the packages may be
viewed or displayed” (page 1, left column, lines 1-4). Given
the foregoing teachings of the applied prior art, it is our
view that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide a portion of one of the walls of the
opaque package of AAPA with a window of transparent material
to obtain the benefit taught by Salfisberg, namely, to allow
for viewing of the contents thereof, and thereby arrive at the
subject matter of claims 1 and 16.
Appellant’s arguments in the brief have been considered
but are not persuasive of error on the examiner’s part in
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007