Appeal No. 2004-0996
Application No. 09/520,947
Morris teaches a bread package which uses an inner wrap of
waxed paper including sealed end flaps and perforations around the
periphery, enclosed in an outer plastic bag (abstract; col. 1, l.
70-col. 2, l. 10; and col. 3, ll. 3-8). Morris discusses the
prior art use of wrapper-type and bag-type bread packaging and
states (col. 1, ll. 65-68)
The principal object of the present invention is to provide a
novel bread package effective to combine the best features of
both wrapper-type and bag-type bread packages.
Accordingly, the examiner has not provided nor established, by
technical reasoning or objective evidence, any convincing showing
why one of ordinary skill in this art would have “substituted” a
preformed bag for the inner wrapping of Morris. McEachen does not
provide this evidence as this reference is directed to bread
packaging involving only one bag with at least one line of partial
weakness distal from the closed end (McEachen, page 3). We find
no support for the examiner’s finding that the sole bag taught by
McEachen has an “equivalent function” as the inner wrapping of
Morris, i.e., “a sealed bread package with a weakening opening
means,” thus providing motivation for the proposed “substitution”
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5). As taught by Morris and
correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 10), the function of
the inner wrap is “that the loaf is firmly maintained in its
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007