Appeal No. 1998-2063
Application No. 08/531,087
package of a slot like that required in the claims on appeal.
Zahuranec and Bredal are relied upon by the examiner to teach a
package including a slot (31; 20) in an enclosure portion of a
package that allows suspension of the package by an aperture
(31a; 18) in a tab without the tension forces acting on the
enclosure portion of the package. The examiner concludes, from
the teachings of the applied references, that to modify “the
concept presented by Reighart in Figure 9 to comprise a spaced
slot as opposed to an eliminated portion would not provide any
unexpected result, as either arrangement would act to eliminate
suspension forces acting on the sleeve while reinforcing the tab
by additional inclusion of the enclosure portion.”
Appellant argues (brief, pages 8-10), and we agree, that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to
modify the Reighart package of Figure 9 in the manner proposed
by the examiner. Like appellant, we consider that the packages
of Zahuranec and Bredal are distinctly different from the type
of package seen in Figure 9 of Reighart and that the teachings
thereof are of such disparate nature that the dispensing package
of Zahuranec and the blister type package of Bredal would not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007