Appeal No. 2004-0996
Application No. 09/520,947
OPINION
The examiner finds that Morris teaches placing a loaf of bread
in an inner package (a wax paper wrapper) that has one end with a
weakening opening means (i.e., perforations) for enabling access
to the loaf by the consumer, inserting the inner package into an
outer bag such that the end of the inner package with the
weakening opening means is inserted last, and closing the outer
bag (Answer, page 4; see also the final Office action, Paper No.
8, pages 2-3). The examiner recognizes that Morris fails to teach
two limitations recited in claim 25, i.e., where the bread loaf is
fed into a bag having a closed end with a weakening opening means
and heat shrinking the inner bag (Answer, page 4; Paper No. 8,
page 3). The examiner relies on McEachen “as evidence of the
conventionality of enclosing a loaf of bread in a bag with a
closed end having a weakening means (i.e. perforations) and an
open end for filling where the weakening means allow the consumer
to access the bread after the package has been sealed” (Paper No.
8, page 3). The examiner further relies on Theed “as evidence of
the conventionality of heat shrinking an inner bag of a double bag
bread package to preserve the bread” (Paper No. 8, page 4).
From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007