Appeal No. 1997-4002
Application 08/459,880
Ferguson does not meet this claim limitation (“Ferguson’s
patches do not cover at least a segment of the bottomline.”
(answer, page 3)). The examiner contends, however, that
the Ferguson patent provides evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention
was made, was aware of the problem of meat bones
puncturing the material of the heat shrinkable bags
in which they were packaged. See Ferguson at col.
1, lines 15-23. In addition, an artisan was aware
that the solution to the problem was attaching
patches to the bags in the locations subject to
being punctured.
See Ferguson at col. 1, lines 35-38. Thus, the general
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made provides the suggestion or
motivation to modify Ferguson’s bag as set out in the
rejection. [Answer, page 7.]
Based on the above, the examiner considers that it would
have been obvious
to extend one of Ferguson’s patches to cover at
least a segment of the bottomline of the bag because
one of ordinary skill in the art, knowing that a
patch on a bone-in meat bag prevents the bag from
being punctured, would have sought to cover any
vulnerable area with a patch, including the
bottomline of the bag. [Answer, page 5.]
Implicit in the above is the examiner’s position that the
patch bag of Ferguson, modified in the manner proposed, would
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007