Appeal No. 1998-2113
Application No. 08/685,478
amended effective April 21, 1995. See also In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140
(CCPA 1978).
The only difference between the subject matter of
claim 15 and the Netherlands reference resides in the
provision of Aan outer package for surrounding said
parallelepiped-shaped, filled inner package and made of
plastic material to provide stability@ (claim 15, lines 8-
9). Appellants do not argue otherwise.
The Burleson patent teaches the art to place an outer
plastic package (24) around bags or sacks containing bulk
goods to provide weather resistant protection (see lines 8-
11 of Burleson=s abstract) as well as providing strength and
toughness (see column 2, lines 8-11, of the Burleson
specification). The additional protection afforded by
Burleson outer package (24) thus serves to stabilize the
condition of the inner sacks containing the bulk goods.
Appellants have proffered no evidence to support their
argument that the sack of the Netherlands reference would
not benefit from the additional thickness afforded by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007