Appeal No. 2000-0890 Page 5
Application No. 08/345,215
The examiner relies upon GB’144 for the details of the claimed package. The
examiner asserts at the top of page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer that the material of the
package and the laminated plastic films, apparently is required by the claims on appeal
are described at page 3 of GB’144. The examiner states at page 5 of the Examiner’s
Answer that making a package of “two distinct sheets” is also “within the scope of the
cited art.” In support of this assertion, the examiner cites GB’144 page 2, lines 43-46
which states “[t]he selection in any particular case of the plastics film material, thickness
of film, and so on, will be governed in part by the substances to be contained within the
envelope….”
We have reviewed GB’144 in its entirety paying close attention to the portions of
the reference cited by the examiner but do not find that it teaches or suggests the
specific requirements set forth in claim 13 on appeal. We do not find any disclosure in
GB’144 that the flexible walls of the package described in the reference should
comprise of two different sheets located in two portions of the package for permitting the
introduction of different sterilizing agencies as required by claim 13 on appeal. The “so
on” portion of the reference relied upon by the examiner does not provide an adequate
evidentiary basis for the examiner’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness.
Absent a fact-based analysis from the examiner explaining precisely where in
GB’144 the requirements of claim 13 are found, we do not find the examiner has
satisfied his initial burden of providing reasons of unpatentability. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 13 through 18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007