Appeal No. 1996-2901
Application No. 08/072,879
flushing be in addition to the antioxidant.” (Answer, page
4). However, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to substitute carbon dioxide for nitrogen in
Nakamura’s process because Nakamura teaches the art recognized
equivalence of carbon dioxide and nitrogen for package
flushing.” (Id. at page 5). In response to appellants’
argument, the examiner finds that Nakamura, col. 8, ll. 3-6,
“explicitly states that the carbon dioxide gas was substituted
for the absorbed oxygen” and that Nakamura teaches gas
flushing of a food package with carbon dioxide is conventional
alone or with the incorporation of deoxygenation agents
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 10-11, pages 11 and 12,
citing Nakamura, col. 1, ll. 16-21 and 22-26). We do not
agree with the examiner’s underlying findings and conclusion
of obviousness regarding the reference evidence of Nakamura.
Nakamura does not disclose or suggest gas flushing and
addition of an antioxidant/deoxygenating composition but
merely discloses that each of these steps is known in the art
(col. 1, ll. 16-21). Furthermore, Nakamura teaches the
disadvantages of using nitrogen or carbon dioxide sealed into
the interior of evacuated packages (col. 1, ll. 22-37).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007