Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will not sustain this
rejection.
According to the Examiner,
Ausnit '369 discloses the claimed
invention except that the package must be
torn along two lines of weakness in order to
access the first and second interlocking
members instead of a peel seal and a line of
weakness. La Pierre et al. shows that
accessing first and second interlocking
members by a peel seal and line of weakness
is an equivalent structure known in the art.
Therefore, because these two access means
were art-recognized equivalents at the time
the invention was made, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to substitute a peel seal and
line of weakness accessing means for two
lines of weakness accessing means.
Furthermore, having met the structure of
applicant's claimed line of weakness and
peel seal, applicant's claimed "header” is
considered to be met (Final Office Action,
page 3).
Appellant’s principal argument about this combination is
that one skilled in the art would not
be motivated to combine the Ausnit reference
with the La Pierre reference because they
disclose packages of different constructions
that are not interchangeable. Claim 1
requires the package to be sealed along the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007