Ex Parte 6,231,905 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2013

90011132 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/011,132 08/03/2010 6,231,905 91943.000577 7442
56356 7590 08/16/2013
PACTIV CORPORATION
c/o NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16TH FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

PACTIV LLC
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent U.S. 6,231,905 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before LORA M. GREEN, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal by Patent Owner Pactiv LLC, from
the Patent Examiner‟s rejections of claims 1-22 in this ex parte
reexamination proceeding. The Board‟s jurisdiction for this appeal is under
35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 306. We affirm.

Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This appeal involves US 6,231,905 B1 (“the „905 patent”) which
issued May 15, 2001. The named inventors are Gary R. DelDuca, Alan E.
Deyo, Vinod K. Luthra, and Wen P. Wu.
A Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the „905 patent was made
by a third-party requester, Multisorb Technologies, on August 3, 2010.
Reexamination of the „905 patent was subsequently ordered (Order Granting
Request for Reexamination, September 20, 2010). An oral hearing was held
April 10, 2013. A transcript was into the record on July 23, 2013.
The real party in interest in this ex parte reexamination proceeding is
the patent owner, Pactiv LLC (Appeal Br. 2, dated February 28, 2012).
Patent Owner states that it is involved in litigation against Multisorb in Civil
Action No. 10-cv-07609 (Pactiv Corporation v. Multisorb Technologies,
Inc.) in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois in
which U.S. Patent Nos. 6,183,790, 5,698,250, 5,948,457, 5,811,142,
6,231,905, 6,315,921 and 6,395,195 have been asserted.
The present reexamination proceeding is related to the following ex
parte reexaminations:
(1) Control No. 90/011,128 (US 6,183,790) (Appeal 2013-002087).
(2) Control No. 90/011,131 (US 5,948,457) (Appeal 2013-003338).
(3) Control No. 90/011,130 (US 5,811,142) (Appeal 2013-003324).
(4) Control No. 90/010,976 (US 5,698,250) (Appeal 2013-001728).
(5) Control No. 90/011,596 (US 6,315,921).
(6) Control No. 90/011,597 (US 6,395,195).
Reexaminations (1) to (4) are decided concurrently with this appeal.
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

3
The technology in the „250 patent involves packaging for meat. The
„250 patent teaches that “[p]ackaging systems which provide extremely low
levels of oxygen are generally preferable because it is well known that the
fresh quality of meat can be preserved longer under anaerobic conditions
than under aerobic conditions.” (Col. 1, ll. 36-39.) The „250 patent
describes prior art systems in which the atmosphere is evacuated of oxygen
and optionally filled with gases other than oxygen to preserve the meat (col.
1, ll. 40-61). “The meat in the modified atmosphere package takes on a less
desirable purple-red color which few consumers would associate with
freshness. This purple-red color, however, quickly „blooms‟ to a bright red
color generally associated with freshness when the package is opened to
oxygenate the fresh meat by exposure to air.” (Col. 1, ll. 61-66.) The „250
patent describes the invention as a packaging system which comprises an
oxygen scavenger to substantially absorb residual oxygen in the package that
remains after the package is flushed with gases to substantially eliminate the
oxygen in the package atmosphere (col. 2, ll. 36-56). The claims are drawn
to packaging systems, and methods of making them, comprising an oxygen
scavenger and also a predetermined amount of an activator to increase the
rate of oxygen absorption (claims 1, 12, 21, 23; col. 4, ll. 35-39). As
explained in the patent, the retail meat is stored in the package, and just prior
to display at the grocery store to the consumer, the package is opened and
the meat exposed to air (col. 2, ll. 31-33; col. 4, ll. 55-58). The meat is
oxygenated and quickly changes or “blooms” to a bright red color (id.).

Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

4
II. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-22 are original claims pending. Claims 1, 10, and 14 are
independent and were amended during the reexamination proceeding
(Appeal Br. 2). Patent Owner appeals the Examiner‟s decision to reject the
claims. The claims stand rejected by the Examiner as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, 18 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 3,574,642 to Weinke ("Weinke")
in view of JP 58-158129 to Sakai
1
("Sakai") and GB 1,556,853 ("GB '853").
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, 18 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Weinke in view of Sakai and EP 468,880 to
Hamon
2
("Hamon").
3. Claims 4, 6-8, 17 and 19-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Weinke, Sakai, GB '853 and further in view of
admitted prior art.
4. Claims 4, 6-8, 17 and 19-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Weinke, Sakai, Hamon and further in view of
admitted prior art.

1
Citations to English Translation of Record.
2
Citations to English Translation of Record.
3
“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
claimed product. . . . Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under
35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is
evidenced by the PTO‟s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and
compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) 2 Citations to English Translation of Record.
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

5
III. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (underlining and
brackets delineating added and removed subject matter, respectively relative
to the originally issued claim):
1. A method of manufacturing a modified atmosphere package,
comprising:
supplying a first package including a non-barrier portion
substantially permeable to oxygen;
placing a retail cut of raw meat within said first package;
sealing said first package;
supplying a second package substantially impermeable to
oxygen;
covering said first package with said second package
without sealing said second package so as to create a pocket
between said first and second packages;
supplying an oxygen scavenger;
activating said oxygen scavenger with [an] a
predetermined amount of oxygen scavenger accelerator;
positioning said oxygen scavenger external to said first
package such that said oxygen scavenger is capable of
absorbing oxygen within said pocket;
removing oxygen from said pocket so as to reduce an
oxygen level therein to a non-zero level; and
sealing said second package, said activated oxygen
scavenger aggressively absorbing any residual oxygen in said
modified atmosphere package so as to reduce the oxygen level
from said non-zero level to approximately zero percent,
wherein the activated oxygen scavenger lowers the
oxygen level in said package to about 0 percent in less than
about 24 hours.

Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

6
IV. SNQ ISSUE
In the Reply Brief, Patent Owner newly cites the Federal Circuit
decision Belkin Int'l Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) which
issued on October 2, 2012, after their Appeal Brief was filed on February 28,
2012. According to Patent Owner, Belkin affirmed the Board‟s decision not
to consider any references that the Director had decided did not form a
substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability and they should not be
considered here (Reply Br. 2). We addressed this SNQ issue in the related
Appeal 2013-1728 (“the „1728 Appeal”). Since we have fully addressed
these arguments in the decision in the „1728 Appeal (“the „1728 Decision”),
rather than repeat the reasoning again as to why we found the arguments
unpersuasive, we incorporate by reference that part of the decision here.

V. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF WEINKE, SAKAI, & GB „853
V.A. Claims 1, 10 and 14
There are three independent claims, claims 1, 10, and 14.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of manufacturing a modified
atmosphere package. The package is supplied with (1) an oxygen scavenger
which (2) is activated with a predetermined amount of oxygen scavenger
accelerator. The “oxygen scavenger” serves the purpose to absorb oxygen
from the package to reduce the oxygen level („905 patent, col. 2, ll. 54-57).
The “oxygen scavenger accelerator” is used to activate the scavenger to
increase the rate at which the oxygen is absorbed (id. at col. 2, ll. 57-61).
The claim requires that the “activated oxygen scavenger lowers the oxygen
level in said package to about 0 percent in less than about 24 hours.”
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

7
Independent claim 10 is a method claim similar to claim 1 with the
same limitation that the “activated oxygen scavenger lowers the oxygen
level in said package to about 0 percent in less than about 24 hours.”
Independent claim 14 is directed to a “system for removing oxygen
from a modified atmosphere package.” The package has an oxygen
scavenger and oxygen scavenger accelerator “for aggressively absorbing any
residual oxygen in said modified package after sealing said second package
so as to reduce the oxygen level from said non-zero level to approximately
zero percent.”
The Examiner found that Weinke describes a packaging system and
process for preparing one as recited in claims 1, 10, and 14, but not
comprising an oxygen scavenger and oxygen scavenger accelerator. For the
latter limitations, the Examiner cited Sakai for its teaching of utilizing a
deoxidizer (“oxygen scavenger”) “to prevent the oxidation of oxymyoglobin
and prevent the meat from becoming brown.” (Answer 5.)
The Examiner found that that Sakai teaches “oxygen is reduced to 0.1
% or less within 12 hours after closely sealing the meat together with the
deoxidizers.” (Answer 5; Sakai, p. 4, ll. 7-10 (“The present invention
requires as its element to reduce oxygen concentration in the container to 5
% or less within a specified interval of time, i.e., within 24 hours, preferably
to 0.1 % or less within 12 hours, after closely-sealing the meat together with
the deoxidizers.”).)
For the “oxygen scavenger accelerator,” the Examiner cited GB „853
which describes an accelerator “to improve the oxygen absorption ability of
oxygen absorbing agent by 5 to 10 times.” (Answer 5; GB „853, p. 1, col.
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

8
55-60 (“Surprisingly, we have found that the agent according to the present
invention, in comparison with the mixture described in J. Clin. Microbiol.,
possesses a 5 to 10 times better oxygen absorption ability.”).) The Examiner
concluded:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include an oxygen
scavenger as taught in Sakai in the packaging of Weinke to
further ensure optimized prevention of oxidative deterioration
resulting from residual oxygen presence. It further would have
been obvious to add a predetermined amount of activator
(accelerator) to the oxygen scavenger to improve the
scavenger's oxygen absorbing ability as disclosed by GB '853 in
light of the teachings in Weinke of the importance of rapidly
reducing the O2 concentration of the sealed packaged meat in
order to preserve color.
(Answer 5-6.)
As to the specific values of oxygen recited in claims 1, 10, and 14, the
Examiner relied upon Sakai‟s teaching of 0.1% or less in 12 hours and the 5
to 10-fold in improvement described in GB „853 (Answer 6).
On pages 12-17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 5-11 of the Reply
Brief, Patent Owner argues that the combination of Weinke, Sakai, and GB
„853 is improper. The arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief appear to be substantially the same as those in related Appeal 2013-
1728 (“the „1728 Appeal”). Since we have fully addressed these arguments
in the „1728 Decision, rather than repeat the reasoning again as to why we
found the arguments unpersuasive, we incorporate by reference that part of
the decision here, specifically, pages 9-21.
Patent Owner also contends “there is no disclosure, teaching or
suggestion that the proposed combination of GB '853 and Sakai would
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

9
obtain the claimed activity levels.” (Appeal Br. 17.) Patent Owner argues
that the scavenger in Sakai worked poorly and the “process in GB '853 uses
an anaerobic vessel so work required by the oxygen absorbing agent is very
minimal to reach the desired oxygen content.” (Id.) Patent Owner also
states that “it is not clear whether the oxygen scavenger system of GB '853,
which works for a few minutes in an anaerobic container, would work as
claimed in the poorly performing system of Sakai.”
Patent Owner cites testimony by Mr. DelDuca to support this position.
See Third DelDuca Decl. ¶ 16. Mr. DelDuca is a co-inventor of the „250
patent. From 1995, Mr. DelDuca was Technical Manager and/or Technical
Sales Manager for the Patent Owner in the area of modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP) for meats (First DelDuca Decl. ¶ 2). His responsibilities
have included designing, developing, and implementing such modified
atmosphere packaging for meat and processes using the same (id.). Mr.
DelDuca possesses the requisite knowledge expected of one of ordinary skill
in the art and thus us is qualified to testify as to the matters in his
declaration.
Mr. DelDuca did not provide evidence that the system in GB „853
would not work in a meat package. The PTO does not have the facilities to
perform testing.
3
Consequently, all an Examiner can do is provide a

3
“Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or
substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
claimed product. . . . Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under
35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

10
reasonable basis upon which to believe that prior art would perform as
claimed, shifting the burden to patent owner to show that it would not. In
this case, the specific teachings in GB „853 about the efficacy of its system
are adequate to provide the Examiner with a reasonable basis to believe it
would work in Weinke and Sakai‟s meat packing systems, shifting the
burden to Patent Owner to show otherwise. These teachings include:
Surprisingly, we have found that the agent according to the
present invention, in comparison with the mixture described in
J. Clin. Microbiol., possesses a 5 to 10 times better oxygen
absorption ability, referred to the amount of iron.
(GB „853, p. 1, ll. 55-60.)
For the production of an oxygen-poor or oxygen-free
atmosphere, such as is necessary, for example, for culturing
anaerobic bacteria, the dry mixture according to the present
invention is brought into contact with a reaction mediator.
(GB „853, p. 2, ll. 18-23.)
After only a few minutes [using a mixture comprising iron
powder as an oxygen absorbing agent and citric acid as an
activator], a practically oxygen-free atmosphere is produced in
the anaerobic vessel.
(GB ‟853, p. 2, ll. 43-56; p. 1, ll. 69-81).
Patent Owner did not provide adequate rebuttal arguments or
evidence. Mr. DelDuca made the statement that there is no “evidence” that
GB „853 would achieve the claimed activity levels. We do not agree. To
the contrary, the evidence cited above, provides an adequate basis that an

evidenced by the PTO‟s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and
compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)
(footnote omitted).
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

11
oxygen-free or a practically oxygen-free atmosphere could be accomplished
in “only a few minutes.”
Mr. DelDuca appeared to imply that the system in GB „853 work[ed]
for a few minutes” (Third DelDuca ¶ 16), but there is no indication that the
mixture in the GB „853 system depleted the container of oxygen and then
stopped working. Mr. DelDuca also did not provide evidence, or a reason
with factual underpinnings, as to why a system that worked in anaerobic
culture container would not work as well in a sealed meat packaging system.
His opinion was that GB „853 would not work in Weinke, but he did not
provide a factual basis or reason for holding this opinion. We credit his
opinion little weight. Consequently, we do not find Patent Owner‟s
arguments persuasive as to claim 1, or dependent claims 9 and 15 which
recite similar limitations. (See Appeal Br. 19.)

V.B. Secondary considerations
In making an obviousness determination, secondary considerations
must be considered if present. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383
U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F.3d 1333, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Evidence rebutting a prima face case of obviousness can
include evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial success,
long-felt but unresolved needs, and unexpected results. WMS Gaming, Inc.
v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Soni, 54
F.3d 746, 750-51 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “When a patent applicant puts forth
rebuttal evidence, the Board must consider that evidence.” In re Sullivan,
498 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

12
The evidence of secondary considerations put forth in this appeal is
the same as in the „1728 Appeal. We fully considered this evidence and
found it inadequate to rebut the Examiner‟s strong case of prima facie
obviousness. Rather than repeat our analysis, we refer to the discussion in
the ‟1728 Decision on pages 28-33.

V.C. Summary
After considering the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that claims 1, 10, and 14 are
obvious in view of Weinke, Sakai, and GB „853. The rejection of claims 1,
9, 10, 14, and 15 is affirmed for the reason described above, those of the
„1728 Decision, and those given by the Examiner. Patent Owner argued that
the dependent claims are patentable for same unpersuasive arguments as for
claim 1 and/or did not present separate patentability arguments (Appeal Br.
24-27). We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 11-13, 16, 18 and
22 as obvious in view of Weinke, Sakai, and GB „853.

VI. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF WEINKE, SAKAI, GB „853, AND
ADMITTED PRIOR ART
The Examiner found that Weinke in view of Sakai and GB '853 “are
silent on teaching the claimed method and apparatus for evacuating and/or
flushing the pocket and sealing the package as recited in claims 4, 6-8, 13,
17 and 19-21.” (Answer 7.) However, the Examiner found that the „905
patent admitted such features were known in the art, and concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

13
known features for their known and intended purpose (id. at 7-8.) The
Examiner‟s reasoning is fact-based and supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Patent Owner has not identified a deficiency in it, and we find
none. As indicated above, the evidence of secondary consideration is
insufficient to rebut the strong case of obviousness. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 17, and 19-21 for the reasons set forth by the
Examiner (id.).

VII. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF WEINKE, SAKAI, AND HAMON
The Examiner applied the same rationale for combining Weinke and
Sakai as in Rejection 1 (Answer 8-9). The Examiner further found:
Regarding claims 1, 9-10 and 15, Sakai further discloses that
oxygen is reduced to 0.1 % or less within 12 hours after closely
sealing the meat together with the deoxidizers. Hamon teaches
that the addition of a predetermined amount of activator
(accelerator), such as ascorbic acid, to the iron oxygen
scavenger improves the oxygen absorption ability of oxygen
absorbing agent (See translation). Thus, the addition of the
oxygen accelerator and activator suggested by Sakai and
Hamon will improve the rate and percentage of oxygen
reduction to within those ranges claimed in claims 1, 9-10 and
15.
(Answer 9-10.)
Claims 1 and 10 recites “wherein the activated oxygen scavenger
lowers the oxygen level in said package to about 0 percent in less than about
24 hours.” As found by the Examiner, the teachings in Sakai and Hamon
provide a reasonable basis on which to believe that the Hamon‟s activated
scavenger would achieve the claimed oxygen levels in the recited amount of
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

14
time. The following teaching of Sakai is pertinent because it teaches a range
which overlaps with the claimed value:
The present invention requires as its element to reduce oxygen
concentration in the container to 5 % or less within a specified
interval of time, i.e., within 24 hours, preferably to 0.1 % or
less within 12 hours, after closely-sealing the meat together
with the deoxidizers.
(Sakai, p. 4, ll. 7-10.)
Hamon provides further evidence that the claimed values would have
been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in combination with
Weinke and Sakai. Patent Owner does not dispute the Examiner‟s finding
that Hamon discloses an oxygen scavenger and activator (Answer 9-10).
The Examiner‟s finding that Hamon‟s system “will improve the rate and
percentage of oxygen reduction” is supported by the evidence (id.). The
following disclosure in Hamon is pertinent:
When one is for very sensitive products to oxygen, especially fats or
wet products such as mayonnaise, fruit, power solutions, or even glue,
this type of absorber is inadequate. Indeed, sensitive products in the
development of microorganisms must quickly be in a low oxygen
atmosphere. Absorbers must have a rate of absorption of oxygen
higher, and in this case a too long residence time in the air can affect
their subsequent absorption and thus the system reliability.
Therefore it is advantageous to use oxygen absorbers activated.
(Hamon, p. 1, ll. 39-45)
The components may be more or less intimately mixed at the time of
rupture of the septum, which has the effect of changing the speed of
the reaction.
The implementation can be automated, allowing the production of an
enhanced rate of reaction.
(Hamon, p. 2, ll. 26-29.)
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

15
Patent Owner contends that Weinke combined with Sakai is deficient
for substantially the same reasons (Appeal Br. 18-19) argued in the „1728
Appeal. We incorporate by reference the reasoning in the „1728 Decision as
to why these arguments are not persuasive (see pages 9-21 of the „1728
Decision).
Patent Owner provided evidence of secondary consideration which is
the same as in the „1728 Appeal. We fully considered this evidence and
found it inadequate to rebut the Examiner‟s strong case of prima facie
obviousness. Rather than repeat our analysis, we refer to the discussion in
the ‟1728 Decision on pages 28-33.
After considering the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that claims 1, 10, and 14 are
obvious in view of Weinke, Sakai, and Hamon. The rejection of claims 1,
10, and 14 is affirmed for the reason described above, those of the „1728
Decision, and those given by the Examiner. Patent Owner argues that the
dependent are patentable for same unpersuasive arguments as for claim 1
(Appeal Br. 24-27). We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 9,
11-13, 15, 16, 18 and 22 as obvious in view of Weinke, Sakai, and Hamon.

VIII. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF WEINKE, SAKAI, HAMON, AND
ADMITTED PRIOR ART
The Examiner found that Weinke in view of Sakai and Hamon “are
silent on teaching the claimed method and apparatus for evacuating and/or
flushing the pocket and sealing the package as recited in claims 4, 6-8, 13,
17 and 19-21.” (Answer 10.) However, the Examiner found that the „905
Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

16
patent admitted such features were known in the art, and concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these
known features for their known and intended purpose (id. at 11.) The
Examiner‟s reasoning is fact-based and supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Patent Owner has not identified a deficiency in it, and we find
none. As indicated above, the evidence of secondary consideration is
insufficient to rebut the strong case of obviousness. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 13, 17 and 19-21 for the reasons set forth by the
Examiner (id.).

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

alw

Appeal 2013-003339
Reexamination Control 90/011,132
Patent 6,231,905 B1

17

PATENT OWNER:

PACTIV CORPORATION
C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza, 16
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60606

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

Stephen B. Salai, Esq.
HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP
1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604-2711