Appeal No. 1996-2901
Application No. 08/072,879
Nakamura also teaches the disadvantages of other gas
substitution methods at col. 1, l. 58-col. 2, l. 16.
We also note that the examiner has misconstrued the
disclosure of Nakamura at col. 8, ll. 3-6, as teaching the
beneficial results of carbon dioxide flushing when Nakamura is
referring to the in situ generation of carbon dioxide to
achieve these results, not gas flushing with carbon dioxide
(see all of Example 1 and also col. 6, ll. 57-61).
Although appellants and Nakamura admit that gas flushing
a container with carbon dioxide is well known per se (Brief,
page 12; Nakamura as cited above), the examiner has not cited
any disclosure or teaching in Nakamura suggesting the
combination of carbon dioxide gas flushing with the foodstuff
freshening agent composition of Nakamura. We agree with
appellants that Nakamura teaches the disadvantages of carbon
dioxide gas flushing (col. 1-col. 2 as discussed above).
Furthermore, Nakamura discloses the poor results achieved with
gas packaging for 100% nitrogen gas, blank (air holding), and
various amounts of carbon dioxide (see Table 4, col. 7, ll.
52-56; Table 6, col. 9, ll. 19-25; Table 8, col. 10, ll. 63-
66; Table 10; and Table 12). Appellants disclose that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007