Appeal No. 1999-0107
Application No. 08/700,427
“‘wall’ does not have agrochemicals disposed between the
individual layers that make up the double layer wall of the
container” (reply brief, page 3) is unpersuasive because claim 1
does not contain any limitation which excludes or is inconsistent
with the agrochemical disposed between the inner and outer bags
110 and 120 disclosed by Gouge ‘595.
Thus, Gouge ‘595 establishes that the invention recited in
claim 1 lacks novelty. Since lack of novelty is the ultimate or
epitome of obviousness (see In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)), we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Gouge ‘595 in view of Gouge ‘601, the teachings of Gouge ‘601
being, at worst, superfluous. We also shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 through 9, 11
and 14 as being unpatentable over Gouge ‘595 in view of 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, supra).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
through 14 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Gouge
‘601, Edwards discloses “a package which comprises a hazardous
chemical dissolved or dispersed in a liquid or gel contained in a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007