Appeal No. 1996-4035 Page 8
Application No. 08/257,431
to make the modifications necessary to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
With this as background, we turn to the examiner's
rejection of claim 1. 7
Claim 1 recites a polymeric film for the storage or
packaging of plant material, the film having from 10 to 1000
perforations per square meter therein, wherein the
perforations have a mean diameter of 20 to 100 microns, the
film having a water vapor permeability of not more than 800 g
-2 -1 3
m day and an oxygen permeability of not more than 200000 cm
-2 -1 -1
m day atmosphere , both permeabilities being measured at
25°C with a relative humidity of 75 percent.
The examiner's rationale for the rejection of claim 1
(answer, p. 4) is that (1) Schirmer teaches a plastic film
7Claims 2-10 and 13-25 incorporate all the limitations of
claim 1 by referring back to claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007