Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
Based on his “Description of the Prior Art,” the following
claimed features are admittedly in the prior art—reclosable
plastic bags having a zipper with a slider, such as that
claimed, and a tamper-evident peel seal. While Appellant
included a description of these features in the prior art
section of his application, he did not so describe reclosable
bags with a second tamper-evident feature, i.e., a line of
weakness below the zipper, and a header for hanging, such as
those claimed (see underlining in claim).
The Examiner determined that the claimed reclosable package
would have been obvious in view of Ausnit, La Pierre et al. (La
Pierre) and Hustad et al. (Hustad). With the exception of the
header for hanging the package for display, Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s findings with regard to what features are
found in the prior art. Rather Appellant argues:
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 sides (i.e., side seals). However,
the Ausnit reference only discloses packages that
have a lap seal . . . along the middle of the
package . . . . Altering the structure of the bags
of the Ausnit reference would require a drastic
alteration of the disclosed method of making the
bags . . . . [Brief at 5.]
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007