Appeal No. 1998-2113
Application No. 08/685,478
supra. Instead, appellants= main argument supporting
patentability of the appealed claims is that one skilled in
the art would not have been motivated to provide the sack
of the Netherlands reference with an outer package because
the sack of the Netherlands reference Adoes not require any
reinforcement or supplemental stability-providing
structure, i.e., a plastic material wrapped around the
same, and one of ordinary skill in the art would certainly
not needlessly provide the same@ (brief, page 8). Details
regarding this argument are set forth on pages 7 and 8 of
appellants= brief.
Reference is made to appellants= brief for further
details of their arguments supporting patentability of the
appealed claims and to the examiner=s answer for further
details of his rejection. Inasmuch as appellants have
stated on page 4 of their brief that appealed claims 1-6,
8-18, 20 and 22 stand or fall together and have argued
these claims as a group, we will select claim 15 as being
representative of this group. As a result, the remaining
claims in this group shall stand or fall with the
representative claim. See 37 CFR ' 1.192(c)(7) as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007