Appeal No. 2006-0253 5
Application No. 10/336,935
examiner in Van Erden do not include perforations (30) like those seen in the zipper
flanges of the package, while true, is of no moment, since the wall segments are clearly
easily separated by tearing and thus broadly define or include a “frangible portion.” For that
reason, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on Van Erden is sustained.
In addition, based on the failure of the argument presented above, and no other
argument being presented, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) is also
sustained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Van Erden, lacking any specific argument for the separate patentability
of these claims or any argument from appellants addressing the obviousness position set
forth by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the final rejection, we will sustain this rejection.
Next, we consider the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Thomas. In this instance, the examiner has determined that
the first and second walls of the
tamper-evident, zipper package seen in Thomas include wall segments (36, 38) which
extend beyond the attachment line of each wall to its associated zipper flange portion and
extend over the interlocking zipper profiles to a joinder, and further include a frangible
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007