Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
Since appellants have not demonstrated or even alleged that
the specifically claimed range for the moisture transmission
rate of the transparent window panel produces unexpected
results, it is our conclusion that it would have been obvious
for an artisan with ordinary skill in the art to determine a
workable or even optimum value for the moisture transmission
rate of the window panel and thereby produce a moisture
barrier bag having a window panel moisture transmission rate
within the range set forth in claims 7 and 12.
We therefore will sustain the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 7, 8, 12 and 13.
Claim 11 has not been separately argued with any
reasonable degree of patentability apart from claim 10, from
which it depends. Accordingly, it falls with the claims from
which it depends. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1570, 2
USPQ2d at 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d at
1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70 (CCPA 1979).
Summary
The § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-8 and
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007