Appeal No. 2006-1779
Application No. 10/249,810
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). The rejection of these claims is thus also
sustained.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, further recites a first closure formed
by the connection of the lower edges of the first and second connecting flaps with
one another indicating prior inaccessibilility of material packaged in the packaging
container. As explained on pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the examiner’s position is
that it would have been obvious to connect the lower edges of the first and second
connecting flaps of Takashi with the tamper evident film (48) of Healy (Figure 8,
col. 4, last para.) in order to indicate prior inaccessibility of material in the
package. The position of the examiner in this regard appears reasonable. Takashi
discloses one form of tamper evident feature, namely, the notches 7 in alignment
with a cutting line 6 above and in parallel with the fastener 3 and Healy teaches the
interchangeability of the perforation (22) and extra seal (24) above the zipper
closure (Figures 1-5) type of tamper evident arrangement and a tamper evident
arrangement comprising a tamper evident film 48 extending downward from each
of the fins of zipper 40 (Figures 7 and 8). Accordingly, to utilize a tamper evident
film, as taught by Healy, connecting the sealing tapes 8, 8 of Takashi to form the
tamper evident feature, in place of the notches and cutting line arrangement
disclosed by Takashi, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue that the tamper evident film 48 of Healy could not be
utilized on the bag of Takashi because Takashi is directed to a top fill bag, and the
tamper evident film would preclude the filling thereof, while such a tamper evident
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007