Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
sealed to one another along said bottom, first side and second
side of said package.” Ausnit’s package is made from a single
sheet that is formed into a tube and joined to itself through a
single longitudinal backseal 43 (Figure 1; col. 3, lines 11-17).
While La Pierre’s Figures 1 and 2 show a reclosable package with
front and back sheets sealed at the bottom and its sides, the
Examiner does not specify how the references are to be combined
to meet the aforequoted feature of claim 1. Indeed, the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this distinguishing
claim feature in either the Final Office Action or the answer.
The reference to Hustad is specifically applied by the Examiner
to meet the limitation of claim 3 and is not relied upon to cure
the deficiencies of Ausnit and La Pierre.
In light of the above, it is apparent that the Examiner has
failed to carry the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We are compelled by this
circumstance to hereby reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007