Appeal No. 2006-1354
Application No. 10/337,026
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will not sustain the
rejections of claims 10, 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Wiley and of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Malin. For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we
will sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and of claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), each
over Strand.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wiley
Claims 10, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Wiley.
Wiley discloses a “reclosable package having a tamper proof
feature” (Figures 3 and 4; col. 3, lines 33-36 and 41-46).
Wiley’s reclosable package 40 has opposing wall panels 46 and
48, a zipper profile 58 having a flange 60 connected to wall
panel 46, and a zipper profile 64 having a flange 66 connected
to wall panel 48, ( col. 5, lines 34-38, 45-50). Zipper
profiles 58 and 64 “are releasably engageable with each other”
(col. 3, lines 51-53). Wiley further discloses the use of a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007