Appeal No. 2002-0420
Application No. 09/230,776
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Speer, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
method and means for initiating on demand an oxygen-scavenging
material used to package oxygen-sensitive products, such as
foods and beverages, by exposing the material to actinic
radiation, “e.g. ultraviolet or visible light having a
wavelength of about 200 to 750 nanometers (nm), and preferably
having a wavelength of about 200 to 400 nm.” (page 6, line 58,
through page 7, line 1). Speer states that “exposure can be
just prior to or during or after packaging” (page 7, line 12),
and that Example 8 (see pages 11 and 12) “demonstrates that
oxygen scavenging can be initiated in a shorter period of time
by exposure to shorter UV wavelength irradiations” (page 11,
2In the final rejection (Paper No. 11), claims 26 through
38 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
and claims 27 and 33 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. The examiner has since withdrawn these
rejections (see the advisory action dated May 4, 2001, Paper
No. 13) in light of the amendments made subsequent to final
rejection (see n.1, supra).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007