Appeal No. 1999-0107
Application No. 08/700,427
appellant has not challenged the examiner’s conclusion (see page
7 in the answer) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the films disclosed by
Gouge ‘601 with a plasticizer to attain the plasticizer benefits
taught by Edwards. Rather, the appellant contends (see page 11
in the main brief) that the applied references do not respond to
the container wall limitations recited in claim 1. For the
reasons discussed above, Gouge ‘601 belies this argument.
Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Gouge
‘601 in view of Edwards.
Finally and with regard to method claim 15, Hodakowski
discloses a method of utilizing water soluble bags/containers of
the sort at issue by placing the bags in a tank of water under
gentle agitation (see the Examples at column 6, line 24 et seq.).
The examiner’s conclusion (see page 7 in the answer) that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to so
utilize the bags disclosed or suggested by the other applied
references is manifestly reasonable and has not been specifically
challenged by the appellant. Here again, the appellant (see
pages 11 through 13 in the main brief and pages 7 and 8 in the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007