Appeal No. 1998-1647
Application 08/668,503
Ferguson wherein the dimensions of the patch 8 and the bag 12
are disclosed. The examiner observes that Ferguson’s patch
comes within ¼” of a side edge of the bag, such that there
would be a maximum of ¼” of uncovered bag material between the
patch and a side edge. The examiner considers that
[i]t would have been . . . obvious [to one of
ordinary skill in the art] to extend Ferguson’s
patches ¼ of an inch to cover at least a segment of
one or more side edges because doing so is simply a
matter of degree and results in the protection of
the bag material up to and including at least one
side edge of the bag. [Answer, page 3.]
In responding to appellants’ argument, the examiner
further states that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious because “it is clear that a patch can be adhered to
Ferguson’s bag in any desired location” (answer, page 4).
Further insight into the examiner’s rationale in rejecting the
claims is found in the final rejection (Paper No. 22), wherein
the examiner states that
workers skilled in the food packaging art must be
presumed to know something about packaging bone-in
cuts of meat apart from what Ferguson and Kuehne
disclose. Providing Ferguson’s patches with an
additional ¼ inch of material along each of their
side edges to provide protection all of the way to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007