Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
teaching of low moisture transmission properties of the type
called for in claim 1. In addition, to the extent appellants
suggest that Salfisberg is non-analogous art (brief, pages 9-
10), we do not agree. In our view, Salfisberg’s display
package teaching is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which appellants were involved, i.e., “a bag having a window
for optically inspecting wafers contained in the bag”
(specification, page 1), thus satisfying the second prong of
the test for analogous art set forth in In re Wood, 599 F.2d
1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the standing
rejection of claims 1 and 16 as being unpatentable over AAPA
in view of Salfisberg.
The § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 17
(rejection (c))
With regard to claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 17, appellants do
not expressly challenge the examiner’s findings on page 6 of
the answer with respect to the Schwinn reference additionally
cited in support of this rejection, or the examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious to modify the AAPA/Salfisberg
combination in the manner proposed in light of Schwinn’s
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007