Appeal No. 2003-0102 Page 8
Application No. 09/543,439
As pointed out by Sansbury (column 2, lines 43-53), this construction permits a thin,
lighter and cheaper body wall construction to be utilized in the vacuum packing
environment.
The examiner concedes that Sansbury’s container lacks a flexible end closure as
called for in claim 1. To overcome this shortcoming, the examiner relies on the
teachings of Markert of a vacuum package with a flexible end. According to the
examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to provide a flexible end closure in Sansbury in view of Markert to
provide additional support (see answer, page 4).
Markert, like Sansbury, is concerned with minimizing the impact of vacuum
forces on the tubular wall of a tubular container used in vacuum packing. Markert
accomplishes this by providing a flexible force or load transferring membrane 20 to seal
one end of the container, with the other end being sealed by a conventional or standard
metal cap14. The inward pressure induced upon removal of the container from the
vacuum chamber after vacuum filling causes the membrane 20 to flex upwardly, firmly
compacting and conforming the goods 28 contained in the container against the inner
surfaces of the conventional end cap 14 and the tubular body 12 to thereby provide a
tight package with substantial additional rigidity and strength beyond that normally
associated with a composite or layered container (column 1, lines 52-58).
From our perspective, Sansbury and Markert utilize two different approaches to
achieve the same objective, namely, protecting the composite tubular body of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007