Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
LINCK, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In view of Appellant’s own
admissions in his Specification, the cited prior art teachings,
and the general knowledge in the art, I do not believe the
claimed invention is patentable.
In his “Description of the Prior Art,” Appellant includes a
description of reclosable plastic bags “hermetically sealed
until consumers purchase them . . . and open them for the first
time.” (Specification at 1.) These prior art bags have
flexible plastic zippers which he describes in some detail in
this section. He points out that “in recent years, plastic
zippers . . . have been equipped with sliders” (id. at 2). Also
admitted to be in the prior art are “tamper-evident features”
including a “tamper-evident non-reclosable peel seal.” (Id. at
2.)
Having described the state of the prior art, Appellant
summarizes the substance of his invention: “The present
invention represents an alternative approach toward providing a
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007