Appeal No. 2006-1356
Application No. 10/375,826
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the groups
of claims that are separately rejected by the examiner.
Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected stand or
fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are satisfied that the examiner’s
rejections are supported by the prior art evidence relied upon
and in accordance with current patent jurisprudence.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner’s Section 102 rejection over
either WO ‘648 or WO ‘649. There is apparently no dispute that1
WO ‘648 discloses applying a material, such as a polyethylene-
based polymer, to a wine cork, bottle or container for the
purpose of absorbing and reacting with taint-causing compounds,
such as 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA). It is appellant’s
contention that the material of the reference acts as a diffusion
barrier which prevents taint-causing compounds to enter into the
beverage, but the reference does not teach that the film material
1Since appellant acknowledges that WO ‘649 is essentially
the same as WO ‘648, we will limit our discussion to the
rejection based on WO ‘648.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007