Appeal No. 2006-1354
Application No. 10/337,026
strip 36. If the examiner’s interpretation is applied
consistently, then Malin’s “sealing strip” necessarily would
have to be regarded as indirectly connected to flange 24 of the
zipper assembly, thus failing to satisfy the claim 10 limitation
“a sealing strip...free of connection to said first and second
flange portions.”
In considering Malin to meet each of the above discussed
limitations, the examiner must have interpreted them
inconsistently such that one encompasses an indirect connection
via connecting strip 36 whereas the other limitation does not.
A claim interpretation which is internally inconsistent is
necessarily unreasonable and therefore improper. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
In light of the foregoing, we can not sustain this
rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Strand
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being unpatentable over Strand.
Strand discloses a reclosable bag incorporating a tamper-
evident feature (col. 1, lines 9-13). More particularly, Strand
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007