Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
the text were repeated in the patent. See MPEP § 2163.07(b). Accordingly,
the embodiments of the tamper-evident structure taught by Thomas and
incorporated by reference into the Tilman patent are part of the disclosure of
Tilman. As such, Tilman discloses an embodiment of the tamper-evident
structure 180 wherein the upper edges of the panel sections 19, 20 are joined
by a peelable seal and thus anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. In the
alternative, Thomas’ disclosure of joining the uppermost edges of the panels
with a peelable seal as an alternative to integral formation of the uppermost
edges with each other would have suggested to the skilled artisan replacing
Tilman’s fold at first closed edge 18 with a peelable seal. Tilman’s
disclosure that the principles of tamper-evident structures described by
Tilman can be used in some embodiments of Tilman’s package belies any
notion that the manufacturing processes or configurations of Tilman and
Thomas are so different that their combination with regard to the tamper-
evident feature would inevitably result in conflicts of purpose, as urged by
Appellants (Br. 6).
For the reasons set forth above, the rejections of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2-4 which Appellants have not separately argued, as being
anticipated by Tilman and as being unpatentable over Tilman in view of
Thomas are both sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013