Appeal No. 1998-2029 Page 15
Application No. 08/258,643
prior art of Morris and Staller clearly would have suggested
to a person having ordinary skill in the art that adhesive and
interlocking rib and groove closure elements were known
sealing alternatives at the time the invention was made.
Accordingly, the substitution of interlocking rib and groove
closure elements for an adhesive seal would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-6, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed and
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007