Interference No. 103,640
incompatibility between Ausnit ‘787 and Ausnit ‘533. In ¶4 and
¶5 he elaborates thereon. We are in substantial agreement with
his conclusions regarding the disclosure of the ‘533 patent in
¶4, but we do not agree that “it is not important what material
is used to form the reclosable zipper,” inasmuch as the bags
herein claimed not only function as point of sale containers but
also function as storage containers when the seal is broken and
a portion of the contents has been removed by the consumer. In
this respect there would, indeed, be some importance as to the
air-proofness and moisture-proofness of the sealing strips. In
¶5, Edelman analyzes the ‘787 patent. While Edelman states that
the closure strips are made of polyethylene or similar material, 9
his analysis is limited to polyethylene. Even if this restric-
tion on the materials considered by Edelman with respect to ‘787
were valid, we must point out that the bag material in Ausnit
‘787 is “polyethylene or like material,” 10 so if the closure
strips are made of polyethylene, the closures are as moisture-
proof or air-proof as the bag wall. Thus, Edelman’s conclusion
of the unsuitability of polyethylene sealing strips in Ausnit
‘787 is undercut by the realization that the bags are made of the
9 Ausnit ‘787, in column 2, lines 38-51, list several mate-
rials both for closure strips and container bags.
10 See Ausnit ‘787 at col. 2, line 5.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007