Appeal No. 2006-1740
Application No. 10/337,124
described in U.S. Patent No. 5,713,669 to Thomas for
tamper-evident structures. See column 7, lines 45-47 of
Tilman” (Answer, page 5).
We disagree with appellants’ argument that there is
nothing in the Tilman reference that would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to seek out the peel seal of the
Thomas reference. It is clear that the examiner is
considering the reference to Thomas as incorporated by
reference in Tillman. As indicated above, it is also clear
that Tillman directs one of ordinary skill in the art to
look at the disclosure by Thomas for alternative
embodiments for tamper-evident structures, including an
embodiment where the tamper-evident structure includes a
frangible connection between the edges of the upstanding
panels (Tillman, col. 7, lines 46-48; Thomas, col. 4, lines
38-42).
Appellants additionally argue that
presently pending Claim 1 recites "a
second frangible connection below said
interlocking members joining said first
wall to said second wall". In contrast,
the Tilman reference discloses bonding
strip 132 which appears to be on the
flange of one of the zipper profiles
and therefore not "below" said
interlocking members.
While the Office Action does not
cite to a specific portion of the
Strand reference, the Applicants note
that Figure 12 discloses a peel seal
50. However, in Figure 12, the header
15 appears to be nothing more than is
disclosed in the Tilman reference. That
is, the top edge is formed by folding
the web or film with nothing resembling
a "first frangible connection” between
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007