Appeal No. 1998-0953
Application No. 08/467,084
of the second panel at a location spaced from the upper edge
of the second panel. Rather, the seal 38' of Holcomb would
have extended to the upper edge of panel 12 (see Canno's Fig.
5). Since all the claim limitations would not have been
taught or suggested by the combined disclosures of Holcomb and
Canno, it follows that the examiner has not established the
prima facie obviousness of the invention set forth in claim 1.
See In re Royka, supra. Accordingly, we cannot support the
examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 13 and 31 call for a tamper resistant
envelope comprising, inter alia, first and second panels, a
first adhesive seal disposed on an interior surface of the
first panel and a second adhesive seal disposed on the
interior surface of the first panel spaced from the first
adhesive seal. Appellant argues (brief, pages 12 and 14) that
neither Holcomb nor Canno discloses "a second adhesive seal .
. . spaced from the first adhesive seal." We agree. Holcomb
discloses a single closure strip 38' in Figures 9A-9C composed
of a low adhesion material 52 and a layer of adhesive 46
applied over the low adhesion material (col. 8, lines 1-16).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007