Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 11
Application No. 10/164,670
to provide a means for the user to close the bag after it has been opened.
Specifically, we hold that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made, possessed with the teachings of Loefberg and Stolmeier, and
motivated by the general problem facing the inventor of creating a reclosable bag
that would remain in an upright position when filled, would have been led to make
the combination recited in the claims. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at
1337. Accordingly, we hold that claim 25 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Loefberg in view of Stolmeier.
It is clear from the examiner’s prior rejection that the teachings of Stolmeier
would also render obvious claims 16 and 17 for the same reasons set forth in the
examiner’s final rejection. See Answer, pp. 3-4. In particular, we agree with the
examiner that Stolmeier discloses that it is known in the art to provide a zipper as a
slide zipper (slider 35) with a stop (shoulders 43 and 44) bonded to at least one end
thereof in an analogous bag. We hold that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have added
the slider zipper reclosable seal of Stolmeier to the bag of Loefberg to provide a
means for the user to easily close the bag after it has been opened.
We also agree with the examiner that Stolmeier discloses that it is known in
the art to provide a tamper evident seal adjacent the fastener of an analogous bag.
See e.g., Stolmeier, col. 1, lines 17-19. We hold that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
added the tamper evident seal of Stolmeier to the bag of Loefberg to provide a
visual indication of surreptitious opening.
We note that the appellants did not contest these findings of the examiner as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007