Appeal No. 2004-0996
Application No. 09/520,947
original conformation” (col. 2, ll. 12-14), while the function of
the outer bag and the inner bag is to seal in freshness (col. 2,
ll. 19-22). Furthermore, the examiner only attempts to establish
motivation by general statements, but does not give specific and
particular reasons. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Although Theed does teach heat shrinking a bag around the
loaf of bread to kill bacteria on the surface, we determine that
this reference also does not provide “further motivation” to
substitute a bag for the inner wrapping of Morris (Answer, page 5;
see Theed, pages 2 and 11). The inner bag of Theed comprises
shrink-wrap material which does not contain any perforations or
partial weakenings but is removed by the consumer (Theed, pages 2
and 6). Theed teaches that perforations are only placed in the
outer bag (abstract; pages 5 and 9). Accordingly, we find no
convincing evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill in this
art would have used the shrink wrap material taught by Theed in
place of the inner wrapping material of Morris, which does contain
perforations (see Morris, col. 3, ll. 15-19). We also note our
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007