Appeal No. 2000-1313
Application No. 08/797,478
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a tamper-evident
sealed package for a product, such as a wound dressing. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 8, which are reproduced in the
opinion section of this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Kurtz et al. (Kurtz) 3,642,126 Feb. 15,
1972
Wardwell 3,938,659 Feb. 17,
1976
Intini 4,537,312 Aug. 27,
1985
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1-7 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Intini in view of Wardwell.1
(2) Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurtz in view of Wardwell.
1 It is apparent from a reading of the examiner's rejection as a whole
that the examiner's rejection is based on Intini in view of Wardwell,
notwithstanding the omission of Wardwell from the examiner's statement of the
rejection in the final rejection (Paper No. 12, page 2) and the answer (Paper
No. 15, page 4).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007