Appeal No. 2002-0420
Application No. 09/230,776
economic advantages” (column 4, lines 11 through 15). Figure
4 illustrates an aseptic packaging apparatus 40 comprising,
inter alia, two reels 402, 404 of packaging material,
flashlamps 408, 416 for irradiating the material before it is
used to package foodstuff, and a series of rollers (undenoted)
for transporting the material along defined paths.
In proposing to combine Speer and Dunn to reject the
appealed claims, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art
to substitute the high intensity pulsed light
treatment as taught in Dunn et al. for the treatment
in the Speer et al. operation to provide more
complete and quicker triggering of the oxygen
scavenging. Particularly, see the comment in Dunn
et al. at col. 4, lines 11-19, that the application
of pulses of high intensity, incoherent
polychromatic light provides efficient, effective,
high throughput processing and results in many
practical and economic advantages [answer, pages 4
and 5].
As persuasively argued by the appellants, however, Dunn’s
use of incoherent, polychromatic light pulses to inactivate
microorganisms and/or enzymes on food products and packages
has no apparent relevance to the oxygen scavenging procedures
disclosed by Speer. Furthermore, the combined teachings of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007