Appeal 2006-3068
Application 10/721,299
reasonably can be considered “food packaging” as that term is used by the
Appellant.
Claims 6 and 15
Independent apparatus claim 6 has limitations similar to those in claim 1 and
further requires that the second end of the tubular body is resilient and engagable
around the food product to attach the tubular body to the food product. Method
claim 15 depends from claim 14 and requires making the tubular body of a
resiliently stretchable material and resiliently stretching the second end of the
tubular body around the food product.
The Appellant argues that Peebles does not disclose that the collar is
resilient and is stretched around the pan or dish (Br. 9). Peebles is silent as to
whether the cover is rigid or resilient. Peebles’ disclosure that the collar and lid
are molded (col. 3, ll. 33-35) indicates that they are plastic. Because Peebles does
not require the cover to be either rigid or resilient, the reference would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, making the cover out of any of the
known rigid or resilient plastics, provided that the plastic is sufficiently rigid to
support the pan or dish. Peebles’ disclosure that the collar’s vertical portion
engages the pan’s or dish’s side and/or end walls (col. 3, ll. 62-64) would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, both the rigid engagement of a
rigid plastic and the stretchable engagement of a resilient plastic.
Conclusion
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Peebles, claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013