Appeal No. 2003-0102 Page 7
Application No. 09/543,439
product” as called for in claims 1 and 9, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9 or dependent claims 5, 6, 8 and 11 as being anticipated by
Curry.
The obviousness rejections
We shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 23, 27,
28 and 30 as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Adamek. This rejection depends
in part on the examiner’s determination that Curry meets the limitation in independent
claims 1, 9 and 23 of at least one flexible end closure “being free to move inwardly
against the product when vacuum is applied so as to provide cushioning support to the
product.” As discussed above, we have concluded that Curry fails to disclose this
limitation and we find nothing in Adamek which cures this deficiency.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 as being unpatentable over
Sansbury in view of Markert. Sansbury discloses a container for use in vacuum
packaging comprising a paperboard tubular body, an inner liner 18 secured to opposed
ends of the tubular body by adhesive stripes 22 and end caps 28. Sansbury discloses
(column 4, lines 22-28) that
the vacuum or reduced pressure atmosphere within the liner
causes an inward deformation of the liner into compacting
engagement with the product substantially independently of
the surrounding container body. The stresses, if any, which
are transferred to the container body are at the opposed
ends thereof which are in turn rigidified by the end caps.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007