Appeal No. 2000-0890 Page 6
Application No. 08/345,215
2. Claims 19-25
In relevant part, these claims require that the upper and lower flexible walls of the
package have an ionomer coating on an inside surface thereof. The pressure-
rupturable seal of the claimed package comprises the ionomer.
The examiner does not point to any passage in GB’144 which describes the
package of that reference having an ionomer coating on the inside surfaces of the upper
and lower flexible walls as required by claim 19 on appeal.
Absent a fact-based explanation from the examiner as to specifically how GB’144
teaches or suggests the requirements of claim 19, especially those involving the
presence of an ionomer coating on the inside surface of the upper and lower flexible
walls of the package, the examiner has not satisfied his initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of unpatentability. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 19
through 25.
3. Claims 26-32
In relevant part, claim 26 requires that the flexible container have a first
compartment having a wall form from a porous polymer sheet, which allows entry of a
gas while the second compartment has walls formed from a plastic resin that provides a
watertight closure. Again, the examiner has failed to point to any specific passage in
GB’144, which describes this aspect of the subject matter set forth in claim 26 on
appeal. Absent a fact-based explanation by the examiner why GB’144 teaches or
suggests the specific requirements of claim 26 on appeal, we again find the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007