Appeal No. 2000-2035 Page 9
Application No. 08/844,282
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
As pointed out above, 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 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 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. Likewise, while
Lehmacher 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,
Lehmacher does not teach or suggest using a barrier peel seal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007