Appeal No. 1999-0107
Application No. 08/700,427
the area which contains component 8 in Gouge’s Figure 2
embodiment constitutes a sealed container composed of a wall
comprising two superimposed, single layer, homogenous and water-
soluble polymer films in the form of sheet 10 and the far pouch
sheet, these sheets also being separable without tearing to the
same extent the appellant’s are. The appellant’s arguments that
Gouge ‘601 is not an anticipatory reference are not persuasive
because they are not commensurate with the rather broad scope of
claim 1. These arguments are perhaps best summed up by the
statement: “Appellant’s container wall must be composed of a co-
extensive bilayer of two water-soluble polymer films which have
weak adhesion properties” (main brief, pages 5 and 6). Claim 1,
however, recites no such co-extensive bilayer.
Since Gouge ‘601 discloses each and every element of the
invention recited in claim 1, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of this claim. We also shall sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of dependent claims 2
through 11 and 14 as being anticipated by Gouge ‘601 since the
appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007