Appeal 2006-3080
Application 10/336,954
According to the Appellants, "there is no basis for combination of the prior
art to derive the claimed invention" (Br. 6).
The Appellants are incorrect. As accurately indicated by the
Examiner, the here claimed disposition of "a sealing strip…joined to first
and second walls below said first and second lines" (claim 10) is known in
this art. See Figure 18 in comparison with Figure 17 of Strand. Also See
Figures 2 and 4 of Van Erden which show patentee's tamper evident seal
(i.e., analogous to the here claimed sealing strip) located below the lines
which join zipper flanges to package walls. In this latter regard, Van Erden
expressly teaches that, "[f]rom the several forms of non-reclosable means
[i.e., the aforementioned tamper evidence seal] and zippers disclosed, it will
be apparent that any appropriate combinations thereof may be chosen for
various particular needs" (col. 5, ll. 36-40). This express teaching reinforces
the Examiner's obviousness conclusion in that it would have suggested
relocating web 117 of the non-reclosable means 115 in patentees' Figure 5
embodiment to a disposition below the zipper flange/package wall joint lines
as shown in Figures 2 and 4.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which the Appellants have
failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness.
Therefore, we also hereby sustain the § 103 rejection of argued claim 10 and
the non-argued remaining claims on appeal as being unpatentable over Van
Erden in view of Strand.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013