Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
Thompson (Fig. 4) cannot disclose both “said first [or second] interlocking
member being positioned proximate to said distal end of said first [or
second] flange portion” and “said distal end of said first [or second] flange
portion being free of attachment to said first [or second] wall,” as called for
in claim 1. Appellants’ argument is well taken and lacks response by the
Examiner. The rejection cannot be sustained.
The Tilman rejections
We address together the rejections of claims 1-4 as being anticipated
by Tilman and as being unpatentable over Tilman in view of Thomas, as the
Examiner’s rationale is essentially the same in both rejections.
As best seen in Fig. 2, Tilman discloses a resealable package having
tamper-evident structure and a zipper-type closure mechanism 14, the
closure mechanism including first and second interlocking profiles 130, 131
closable by slider device 160 (col. 6 – not shown in Fig. 2). The
interlocking profiles 130, 131 include bonding strips 132, 142 and first and
second interlocking closure members 134, 144 projecting from base strips
133, 143. The bonding strips 132, 142, respectively, are secured to the first
and second panel sections 19, 20, respectively, of the package (col. 5, ll. 21-
24). The closure members 133, 134, which respond to the first and second
interlocking members recited in claim 1, are positioned proximate distal
ends of the profiles 130, 131 free of attachment to the first and second panel
sections 19, 20. In the embodiment of Fig. 2, Tilman illustrates and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013