Appeal No. 2000-1313
Application No. 08/797,478
this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 4 of
appellants' brief.
Claim 8 reads as follows:
8. A tamper-evident sealed package for a wound
dressing comprising a top sheet having an inner and
outer surface, a bottom sheet having and [sic: an]
inner and outer surface, and a wound dressing, the
inner surface of the top sheet sealed to the inner
surface of the bottom sheet so as to seal the wound
dressing between the top and bottom sheets and
provide a sealed package, the portion of the top and
bottom sheets that are sealed to each other defining
sealing areas, the top sheet of the sealed package
having at least one perforation in its sealing area
so that when the sheets are separated from one
another, the top sheet tears adjacent to the at
least one perforation to provide an indication that
the sealed package has been at least partially
opened.
Claim 8 recites at least one perforation, but, in
contrast to claims 1 and 16, does not recite tabs extending
beyond the sealing area and not sealed to one another.
Additionally, claim 8 recites a wound dressing sealed within
the package.
As discussed above, Kurtz discloses at least one
perforation 9 in the sealing area of the package. The
examiner (answer, page 4) asserts that "[w]hen the sheets are
separated from each other, the top sheet tears adjacent to the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007