Interference No. 103,640
opening, itself an advantage, we note that only one layer of
material need be severed, either 49 or 50 to gain access to the
contents of the bag. The consumer can gain access to the bag by
severing at perforation 49, at perforation 50, or the consumer
can remove the entire strip, as shown in Figure 6. In contrast,
when opening the fin seal of Ausnit ‘533, the user must sever two
layers of material to gain access to the bag, which layers, since
they are laminated, necessarily reinforce one another. Thus, the
force needed to open the fin seal is necessarily greater, due to
the arrangement of the seal, all other factors being equal.
Alternatively, Ausnit ‘533 is evidence of recognition
in the art of the desirability from an efficiency standpoint of
the form, fill, and seal process in materials packaging. Ausnit
‘533 adds the further teaching that consumers desire a tamper-
indicating seal outwardly of the closure strip in a form, fill
and seal foodstuff container.
A claimed invention is unpatentable as obvious "if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (1994); See In re Gartside,
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007