Appeal 2007-1596
Application 09/996,707
produce handling machines of the primary references to reduce damage to
the produce. We determine that the claimed subject matter merely combines
familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield
predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82
USPQ2d at 1395.
With regard to Appellant’s separate arguments for claims 16 and 18
(Br. 20), we adopt the response of the Examiner (Answer 14). With regard
to the separate arguments against Boyle (Br. 20-21), we adopt the
Examiner’s response (Answer 14-15). In response to Appellant’s argument
against Moore (Br. 22), we note again that the use of foam padding to reduce
damage to the produce was admittedly well known. With regard to the
argument against claims 22 and 24, we note that Appellant admits that these
antibacterial agents were known in the art (Specification 7:24-8:6). With
regard to Appellant’s other arguments concerning specific dependent claims,
we refer to and adopt the Examiner’s response (Answer 15-19).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
every ground of rejection based on § 103(a) presented for review in this
appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013