Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
zippered plastic bags having two side seals and a tamper-evident
peel seal.
References are valid for all that they teach. In this
case, Ausnit teaches the use of two tamper-proof features—one of
the claimed elements that Appellant’s prior art description did
not include.2 Appellant does not dispute this fact.
With respect to a header for hanging the package, Appellant
argues that
the combination of Ausnit and La Pierre fails to teach or
suggest “a header for hanging said package for display” as
required by claim 1. In order to provide a header to hang
the package sufficient material must exist between the peel
seal and the line of weakness to allow the bag to be
hanged. [Brief at 6.]
The Examiner responds to this argument as follows:
[T]he feature upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
“sufficient material . . . between the peel seal and the
line of weakness”) [is] not recited in the rejected claims.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not
read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
[1184,] 26 USPQ2d 1057, [1059] (Fed. Cir. 1993). [Answer
at 6.]
2 The Ausnit reference discloses a tamper-evident seal (68) above
the zipper and a peel seal (77) below it when the bag is
reoriented so that the zipper is on the top of the bag (col. 3,
lines 55-61). Hustad also discloses a reclosable package with
two tamper-evident features--a line of weakness above the
reclosable seal and a peel seal below the reclosable seal. See,
e.g., col. 2, lines 7-15 & lines 34-40.
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007