Appeal No. 2006-0253 6
Application No. 10/336,935
portion at the line of perforations (40). Appellants’ argument that the upstanding panels
(36, 38) of Thomas are not “wall segments” is unpersuasive. The panels (36, 38) in
Thomas clearly define a portion or segment of the outer package walls and thus constitute
a “wall segment.” The claims on appeal do not preclude the first and second package
walls from being made of more than one piece of plastic material, with one of those pieces
defining a “wall segment” like that set forth in the claims on appeal. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Thomas is sustained.
We also sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Thomas. Again, appellants have not presented a specific argument for
the separate patentability of this claim or any argument addressing the obviousness
position set forth by the examiner in the final rejection.
Since each of the rejections presented on appeal has been sustained, it follows that the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the present application is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007