Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
under U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Indeed, the Examiner
should consider whether the electrostatically charged plastic material of the
construction of Schelhorn (Schelhorn, e.g., col. 2, ll. 22-29) would provide a
protective function to any surface with which it is in contact to any extent
with respect to the wrapped meat product.
The Examiner should develop the “[p]rotective materials that consist
of an absorbent layer with a plastic backing” admitted by Appellant to be
“well known in the art” (Specification 1:12-14) and determine whether the
plastic backing in any such material would be electrostatically charged to
any extent, by any means, when the material is placed in contact with any
surface and thus, whether any such material applies to the pending claims 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, the Examiner is required to take appropriate action
consistent with current examining practice and procedure to consider the
application of Siess, Reader, and Schelhorn along with any other prior art
developed by the Examiner, to pending claims as set forth in our comments
above along with other issues that arise from the developed record, and
determine whether a new ground or grounds of rejection of one or more
pending claims in this application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 102(e), and
103(a) should be entered on the record subsequent to the disposition of this
appeal.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013