Appeal No. 2000-2035 Page 6
Application No. 08/844,282
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6-8, 10,
11, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Papro in view of Stanek.
In this rejection, the examiner determined (final
rejection, p. 2) that Papro disclosed the subject matter of
claim 17 except for the "peel seal" and that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to provide the self-closing,
bifold membrane of Papro with the peel seal and pull tabs of
Stanek, in order to prevent premature access to the self-
closing membrane.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-5) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
All the claims under appeal require both a barrier peel
seal provided between facing portions of the peripheral edges
of the bifold membrane adjacent the top edges of the barrier
walls and the barrier walls being movable away from one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007