Appeal No. 2004-1747
Application No. 09/932,723
to claims 3 and 4. Although such entry of amendments is outside
the scope of our review, we do note that the Examiner's Answer
indicates the entry of the amendments to claims 3 and 4 after
final rejection. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or
fall together, and we will limit our consideration to the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 3.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we concur with the examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Baxter, like appellant, discloses
an inflatable bladder for use in package transport. Baxter
discloses that typical multi-ply inflatable bags used as shoring
devices and containers for liquids include an inner, inflatable
bladder and a protective shell enclosing the bladder. The
reference further teaches that the protective shell is typically
made of a puncture resistant material such as plastics, e.g.,
polypropylene. Also, Baxter teaches that the inner bladders have
typically been made of rubber or plastic sheet materials, such as
polyethylene (see column 1, lines 10-32). As recognized by the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007