Appeal No. 2000-2035 Page 7
Application No. 08/844,282
another about the longitudinal fold of the bifold membrane to
expose the longitudinal fold for piercing by the straw.
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied
prior art. In that regard, while Papro does teach barrier
walls being movable away from one another about a longitudinal
fold of a bifold membrane to expose the longitudinal fold for
piercing by a straw, Papro does not teach or suggest using a
barrier peel seal provided between facing portions of the
peripheral edges of the bifold membrane adjacent the top edges
of the barrier walls. Likewise, while Stanek does teach a
barrier peel seal in Figures 5 and 6, Stanek does not teach or
suggest using his barrier peel seal in combination with
barrier walls movable away from one another about a
longitudinal fold of the bifold membrane to expose the
longitudinal fold for piercing by a straw.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Papro in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007