Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 along a line of weakness as taught by Kim, and whether Lizio teaches or
2 suggests expanding the products in the package upon opening of the first
3 closure member. With regard to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
4 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lizio in view of Kim and Miller, the
5 issue turns on whether Miller would have suggested a resealable second
6 closure.
7
8 FINDINGS OF FACT
9 We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
10 least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
11 1422, 1427, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
12 evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
13 1. Appellant invented
14 a unitary flexible package for enclosing and containing in a
15 sealed condition one or more compressible products in both a
16 compressed and uncompressed condition. The package
17 comprises a first closure member capable of sealing the
18 package in a first closed condition defining a first volume,
19 and a second closure member capable of sealing the package in
20 a second closed condition defining a second volume, the
21 second volume being greater than the first volume.
22
23 (Specification 3).
24 From our review of Lizio, we make the following findings of fact:
25 2. “This invention relates to a package and more particularly to a
26 novel compression type package and method of forming the same to
27 contain and maintain a compressible material therein in its
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013