Appeal No. 1998-2113
Application No. 08/685,478
Burleson=s outer package. Indeed, appellants do not
expressly challenge the examiner=s finding that Burleson=s
outer package (24) provides Amore stability@ for the
packaged goods as stated on page 4 of the answer. Even
appellants= admitted prior art (see the paragraph bridging
pages 1 and 2 of appellants= specification) recognizes the
desirability of providing an outer package in the form of a
box around an inner sack containing the bulk goods. The
foregoing prior art teachings discussed supra, appellants=
arguments notwithstanding, would have been ample motivation
for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outer
plastic package around the sack disclosed in the
Netherlands reference for reasons stated supra, namely to
provide additional protection for stabilizing the condition
of the sack containing the bulk goods.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have
suggested the subject matter of claim 15 to one of ordinary
skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of obviousness
under the test set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we will
sustain the ' 103 rejection of claim 15, and we will also
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007