Appeal No. 2006-1088
Application No. 09/974,400
seal of Yeager’s package is opened. Again, appellant’s zipper
is also disclosed to be used within a bag.
Also, contrary to appellant’s arguments, we do not find
that the use of impermissible hindsight is necessary for
concluding that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to use a slider of the type disclosed by
Thieman to facilitate opening and closing the zipper of Yeager.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness
established by the applied prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007