Appeal Number: 2006-2894
Application Number: 10/375,188
upon by the examiner for a disclosure of a barrier layer
(answer, page 6).
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to add
Cappuzzo’s granules 21 and 22 to Lin’s strip 640 because
Cappuzzo’s granules freely distribute inside the trash bag
whereas the insecticide or insect repellent on Lin’s strip 640
is a coating (brief, page 8). Cappuzzo’s disclosure that
particles 22 are adhesively secured to the interior of the bag
(col. 3, line 67 – col. 4, line 4) would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, the use of Cappuzzo’s
combination of deodorizing and animal repellant granules
(col. 3, lines 60-63) in Lin’s coating to obtain the benefit of
both types of granules. Moreover, Lin is not limited to using
insecticide or insect repellent in the form of a coating. Lin
also discloses that, like Cappuzzo’s granules, the insecticide
or insect repellent can be in the form of a powder that flows
downwardly onto trash in the bag (col. 2, lines 34-37; col. 3,
lines 27-29). Thus, Cappuzzo’s disclosure of using deodorizing
and animal repellent granules in combination (col. 3, lines 60-
63) would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, using that combination in Lin’s tubular pouch to obtain
the benefit of both types of granules. Furthermore, Lin’s
disclosure of using repellent and/or poisonous materials such as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007