Appeal No. 96-4102
Application 08/500,421
agreement with the examiner that it is the claims that define the
invention rather than the unclaimed description from appellants’
specification.
Appellants also argue that Arcudi does not teach an
elongated tear-propagating slit that does not extend to the edge
of the bag. Here again, we agree with the examiner that Figures
10 and 11 clearly show the slit 17 of Arcudi not extending to the
edge of the container or package. We note that if a user of
appellants’ package folded the heat-sealed seam through the slit,
then the slit could be said to extend to the edge of the package
just as Arcudi’s does. Appellants further argue that Arcudi does
not tear off a corner. We disagree. If the container or package
of Figure 10 is torn open as specified by Arcudi, the lower right
hand corner, as shown in Figure 10, is torn off. Finally, we are
in agreement with the examiner that to the extent the appellants’
package forms a pouring spout, Arcudi’s does also.
Turning to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we are of the view that the Arcudi reference does not
provide evidence sufficient to have rendered the subject matter
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The
Arcudi reference is not concerned with chlorine-stable synthetic
resins and indeed does not disclose such. While the examiner has
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007