Appeal 2007-1596
Application 09/996,707
prima facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments.
First, we note that Appellant admits that use of foam padding to reduce
bruising of produce in produce handling machines was known in the prior
art (Specification 1:5-24; see also Answer 16). As shown by factual
findings (1) through (4) listed above, we determine that the applied prior art
establishes that the use of foam padding on at least one stationary produce-
contacting surface to reduce damage to the produce was well known in this
art. Second, we note that Appellant admits that the inclusion of antibacterial
agents in various materials to inhibit the growth of bacteria was well known
(Specification 1:28-2:21; see also the commercial products listed at
Specification 7:19-23 and the disclosure at 7:31-8:4). As shown by factual
findings (10) and (12) listed above, we determine that the applied prior art
establishes that the incorporation of antibacterial agents with foam padding
to inhibit or retard the growth of bacteria on a food-contacting surface was
well known in the art. Furthermore, we determine that Zabron teaches that
the incorporation of an antibacterial agent can be expanded into other
materials (see factual finding (11) listed above).
Thus, we determine that it would have been within the ordinary skill
in this art to have employed the foam padding with an antimicrobial agent,
as taught by Zabron, with any food-contacting member in a produce
handling machine for the benefit taught by Zabron (see the Answer 12). We
also determine that JP ‘841 teaches that polyurethane foam has many diverse
uses but is beneficial for its light weight and cushioning effect (see factual
finding (13) listed above). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary
skill in this art would have used the polyurethane foam with an antibacterial
agent, as taught by JP ‘841, for its light weight and cushioning effect in the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013