Appeal 2006-2859
Application 11/062,725
1 8) that Tate does not disclose that one bag envelops an item of three-
2 dimensional shape because claim 1 does not recite that one bag envelops an
3 item. In any case, Tate discloses that one bag may surround the item (col. 1,
4 ll. 61 to 63; col. 2, ll. 63 to 65). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the
5 Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 1 as being
6 anticipated by Tate. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to
7 claims 5 and 7 because the Appellants have not argued the separate
8 patentability of these claims.
9 We will, however, not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims
10 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11 because Tate does not disclose a net bag.
11 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 8,
12 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Alivizatos
13 because Alivizatos does not disclose a membrane that is deformable in three
14 dimensions to envelop an item of three dimensional shape.
15 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 to
16 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Olesen because Olesen does
17 not disclose a membrane that is deformable in three dimensions to envelop
18 an item of three dimensional shape.
19 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Groth does not disclose a porous
21 membrane.
22 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 under
23 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fuss as we find that Fuss
24 discloses each element of claim 1. We do not find the Appellants’ argument
25 (Appeal Br. 14) that Fuss does not disclose a shipping carton persuasive
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013