Appeal No. 2002-1850
Application 08/288,574
Appellant’s specific argument relative to the obviousness
rejection (main brief, page 31), i.e., there is nothing in the
prior art reference to Korlatzki which will teach, suggest, or
disclose the claimed concept of a packaging envelope which is
permanently elastic and which is useful for the packaging of
meat, addresses the content of independent claim 1 and not the
specific limitations of the individual claims in the obviousness
rejection. We determined that the subject matter of claim 1 was
not patentable over the Korlatzki patent, supra. It follows that
the rejection of claims 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained since these claims stand or fall
with claim 1, as earlier pointed out. The content and weight of
the Meixner affidavit and the Langowski declaration were earlier
assessed relative to the Korlatzki patent and found not to be
persuasive of the patentability of claim 1.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
§ 112 rejection, has sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 7, 8, 12, 15 through 24, 28 and 29 under § 102(b), but has not
sustained the rejection of claims 2 and 26 under § 102(b), and
has sustained the § 103(a)rejection.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007