Appeal No. 1996-2901
Application No. 08/072,879
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
method of removing oxygen from a container having a product
and a high moisture environment where oxygen was previously
flushed out of the container (Brief, page 1). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
this claim is attached as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Gammill et al. (Gammill) 2,819,491 Jan. 14,
1958
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 4,384,972 May 24,
1983
Claim 1 stands rejected under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, as indefinite (Answer, page 3). Claims 1
through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Gammill (id.). We
reverse both of the examiner’s rejections for reasons which
follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶2
The examiner states that “it is not clear how the
moisture is ‘supplied’ to the O -sorber and CO -generator since2 2
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007