Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
describes a tamper-evident structure 180 formed by extending the first and
second panel sections 19, 20 beyond the closure mechanism and folding the
panel sections 19, 20 at a first closed edge 18. Tilman’s tamper-evident
structure 180 is typically penetrated by either cutting along the closed edge
18 or by tearing the closed edge 18 from the package (col. 7, ll. 34-36).
Appellants contend Tilman does not anticipate claim 1 because the
tamper-evident feature described in Tilman’s Fig. 2 embodiment does not
comprise one segment extending over the zipper profiles and being sealed to
an opposite segment thereby forming a frangible seal, as called for in
Appellants’ claim 1. As explained more fully below, the Examiner relies on
the teachings of Thomas to address the tamper-evident seal limitation of
claim 1. Appellants further contend the packages of Tilman and Thomas are
manufactured by such completely different processes and have such widely
different configurations that “their combination with regard to certain
features would inevitably result in conflicts of purpose” (Br. 6).
The Examiner, noting Tilman’s disclosure (col. 7, ll. 46-48)) that “[i]n
some embodiments, tamper-evident structures can use principles described
in [the Thomas patent], incorporated by reference,” finds a teaching in
Tilman of an alternate tamper-evident structure embodiment wherein the
first closed edge is formed by a peelable seal rather than a fold. In making
the anticipation rejection, the Examiner contends Tilman’s incorporation by
reference to the tamper-evident structure principle described in Thomas
(Thomas, col. 3, ll. 60-67; col. 4, ll. 37-42) constitutes a disclosure by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013