Appeal 2007-1890
Application 10/444,624
use an antifog agent in an outer film layer in the packaging article disclosed
by Blinka?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments and evidence.
Therefore we AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection in this appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Blinka discloses packaging for oxygen-sensitive food which
comprises a multilayer film with an internal layer containing an oxygen
scavenger between two outer polymeric layers, where the multilayer film
further comprises an oxygen barrier layer between the outermost layer and
the oxygen scavenger layer (Answer 3; see Blinka, Abstract; Figs. 2 and 5;
col. 1, ll. 7-50; and col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 2);
(2) Kuo teaches that fogging is a common problem in the packaging
of oxygen-sensitive food products, but the use of an antifog agent in
amounts of about 2.5% to about 5% in the outer film surface of a multilayer
packaging for oxygen-sensitive products solves this problem, where the
antifog agent provides fog resistance, a clear view of the contents of the
package, improves the aesthetics to the consumer, and provides adequate
adhesion for printing on the surface of the outer film (Answer 4; see Kuo,
Abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; col. 1, ll. 14-21; col. 2, ll. 4-5 and 41-63; col. 3, ll.
37-59; col. 4, ll. 22-39; and col. 18, ll. 1-5); and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013