Opinion ID: 4520331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The rejection of claims 16 and 18–21 as obvious

Text: over De Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Herdeman, Nakata, Sisler, and Orman. J.A. 4–5. The Board considered grounds A–E, related to claims 1–8 and 10–15, together, and separately considered ground F, related to claims 16 and 18–21. The Board reversed the examiner as to ground F. J.A. 14. Accordingly, Clarke’s appeal does not address independent claim 16 and dependent claims 18–21. Clarke also does not separately appeal grounds C–E (concerning dependent claims 7, 13, and 15), relying instead on establishing the patentability of the independent claims to show the patentability of the dependent claims that the Board rejected under those combinations. First, relevant to claims 1–8 and 10–15, the Board found that De Moor teaches an ACM within the scope of the claims. J.A. 6. Clarke argued to the Board that De Moor does not teach the claims’ ACM because De Moor’s ACM includes a “cover member.” Id. Clarke argued that the “consists of a membrane which comprises” language of the claims, describing the ACM, meant that the extra structure in De Moor put De Moor’s ACM outside the scope of the claims. Id. The Board found, however, that there is no real difference between the proposed claims and De Moor’s structure. The Board explained that De Moor’s cover member “can be an integral part of the barrier sections surrounding the control member . . . . This structure Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 03/26/2020 IN RE: CLARKE 9 is no different than what Appellant describes in the Specification as his invention, i.e., a gas permeable membrane control member secured over one or more holes in a bag.” Id. Thus, the Board found, “[a]ny difference resides merely in the language De Moor uses to describe the structure rather than in the structure itself.” Id. Next, as to claim 1, the Board considered whether the examiner erred in finding that a skilled artisan would have selected a membrane with the oxygen and ethylene permeabilities recited in claim 1 for use with De Moor’s container and whether De Moor discloses the 4 kg limitation. J.A. 7– 9. The Board found no error in the examiner’s analysis. It explained that De Moor, Curtis, and Nakata are “concerned with packaging that will inhibit the spoilage of respiring fruits and vegetables during transport and storage” and “teach using gas permeable membranes to control the concentrations of various gases within the package.” J.A. 7. De Moor expressly discloses a conventional-sized container for packaging fruits and discloses a gas permeable membrane with oxygen permeability that meets the claimed range. J.A. 8. The Board further found that Clarke and Nakata show that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize De Moor’s membrane to achieve the claimed permeability values. J.A. 8–9. The Board also found that Schreiber teaches a conventional sized shipment container carrying 18 kg of fruit. J.A. 9. Thus, the Board found the examiner’s rejection was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. As to claim 12, addressing ground B, the Board found that Herdeman discloses the use of ethylene to rapidly ripen fruits in a combination shipping and ripening container. J.A. 10. The Board further found that Herdeman discloses ripening the fruit while the fruit was in boxes. Id. The Board explained, [a]lthough Herdeman does not specify the struc- ture of the boxes in which the fruit is stored, a Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 03/26/2020 10 IN RE: CLARKE preponderance of the evidence indicates that using sealed containers having gas permeable mem- branes was known in the art to store fruit and veg- etables after picking. This is clear from the teachings of both De Moor and Herdeman, which provide evidence of the conventional methods used in picking, storing, shipping, and ripening of respiring fruit. The fruit is often picked when green, cooled, and packaged in sealed polymeric containers. J.A. 11. Decision on Rehearing. Clarke requested rehearing of the Board’s decision as to claims 1–8 and 10–15. J.A. 18. He challenged the Board’s rationale and conclusions as to De Moor’s ACM, the prior art’s disclosure that ethylene and oxygen permeabilities were known result-effective variables in the art, and placing a sealed container in a Herdeman-type environment. J.A. 19. The Board denied the rehearing request. Id. First, the Board reiterated its view that there is no meaningful distinction between the claims and De Moor’s ACM. J.A. 20–21. It explained that claim 1, a comprising claim, does not exclude the presence of a bag in addition to the ACM. The “consists of” language of the ACM limitation does not, the Board explained, change that understanding. J.A. 20. Second, the Board rejected Clarke’s argument that its analysis focused on the permeability of the membrane alone to find overall container permeability limitations disclosed. J.A. 22. Instead, the Board explained, its decision that the prior art teaches that a person of ordinary skill would find optimal permeabilities was based on teachings from multiple references that use permeable membranes to achieve certain concentration of various gases in the entire package. Id. The Board explained, Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 03/26/2020 IN RE: CLARKE 11 the references as a whole evince that the relationships between the gas concentrations and ripen- ing/spoilage rates were known in the art and that those of ordinary skill in the art understood how to control the gas concentrations in containers through the use of a membrane as well as by con- trolling the mix of gases in the environment outside the container to obtain a desired result, i.e., a desired rate of ripening or of spoilage prevention. J.A. 23–24. The Board cited In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990), for the proposition that, once it is shown that the prior art provides guidance on optimal ranges, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed range achieved unexpected results. Thus, because “both oxygen permeability and ethylene permeability were known to have an effect,” the Board explained that the burden was on Clarke to establish that the result of the claimed invention was unexpected—a burden he failed to carry. J.A. 24. Third, the Board rejected Clarke’s argument that it had equated Herdeman’s shipping container to De Moor’s ripening container. J.A. 25. The Board explained that Herdeman’s shipping container is like a ripening room into which a container, such as the one described in De Moor, might be placed. Id. Clarke appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).