Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
Tilman of an alternate embodiment of the tamper-evident structure 180
wherein the upper ends of the package panel sections 19, 20 are secured to
one another by a peelable seal rather than a fold. In the alternative, in
making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner contends the combined
teachings of Tilman and Thomas would have suggested such an alternate
embodiment to arrive at the claimed subject matter (Answer 4).
Thomas discloses a tamper-evident feature for a bag having a zipper
with a slider, wherein the tamper-evident feature includes first and second
upstanding panels 36, 38 joined to each other at their upper edges to form a
pocket in which the slider and zipper are captured (col. 3, ll. 60-64). The
upper edges of panels 36, 38 may be joined to each other by thermal fusion
or by integrally forming the upper edges with each other (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
To permit access to the bag, Thomas discloses three alternative
embodiments of a one-time breakable seal formed in the pocket. One
embodiment consists of a single line of weakness formed at the juncture of
the uppermost edges of panels 36, 38 (col. 4, ll. 34-36). A second
embodiment consists of parallel lines of weakness or perforations 40 (col. 4,
ll. 23-26). A third embodiment consists of a peelable seal formed by
detachably connecting the inner surfaces of panels 36, 38 with a tacky
adhesive-like substance well known in the art (col. 4, ll. 37-42).
Both the Examiner’s theory of anticipation and the Examiner’s
alternate theory of obviousness are well founded. The information
incorporated by reference into a patent is as much a part of the patent as if
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013