Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
I agree with the Examiner that the claims are not so
limited. In any case, Appellant’s statement overlooks Hustad,
the third cited reference. Hustad very clearly discloses “a
header for hanging said package for display.” (See the figures
in Hustad.) Additionally, the general knowledge in the art
includes such hangers for packaging. The “Background” teachings
of La Pierre evidence this fact (see col. 1, lines 42-46
(referencing U.S. Patent No. 4,615,045 to Siegel)).3
Given the state of this art, Appellant’s “Description of
the Prior Art,” the general knowledge in the art, and the
teachings of the relevant art—that related to providing
reclosable packages with tamper-evident features—it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to make Appellant’s
claimed invention. Thus, I would affirm the Examiner.
) BOARD OF PATENT
NANCY J. LINCK ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
3 Moreover, anyone who has ever gone into a grocery store would
have knowledge of the use of headers to hang packages (as well
as packages with two side seals).
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007