Appeal No. 1998-1870
Application No. 08/447,063
recognized solution as taught by Chikaishi. Apart from claim 1,
we are of the view that the overall knowledge of those practicing
the art, as reflected in the applied teachings, would have been
suggestive of the subject matter of dependent claims, in
particular, the content of claims 34, 49, and 50. Like the
examiner (answer, page 8), it is apparent to us that the combined
teachings would have been suggestive to one having ordinary skill
in the art of doubling the typical film used for bags containing
agrochemicals thereby yielding a thickness falling within
appellants' range in claim 34. Additionally, as to claims 49 and
50, the suggestion by Chikaishi (page 8) for a lamination of
films of the same thickness would yield a ratio of 1, clearly
falling within the respective ranges of claims 49 and 50. It is
worthy of noting that, as to the content of, for example, claims
34, 49, and 50, the underlying specification does not indicate
that the selection of a value within the respective claimed
thickness and ratio ranges would achieve a particular advantage
or yield an unexpected result.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007