Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
The Ausnit in view of Thomas rejection
As best seen in Figs. 4 and 5, Ausnit discloses a resealable package
having a zipper 16 with a slider 30. The zipper and slider are captured
within a pocket formed by extensions of package walls 53, 55 secured at
their upper ends with a tamper-evident seal 68 and provided with
perforations 54. To open the package 50, the user tears off the tamper-
evident seal 68 along the perforations 54 and moves the slider to open the
zipper interlocking members (col. 4, ll. 40-44).
The Examiner finds that Ausnit discloses the invention recited in
claims 1-4 except that Ausnit discloses lines of perforation, rather than a
frangible seal, to access the slider (Answer 5). Appellants do not contest this
finding.
The Examiner, apparently relying on the disclosure of Thomas (col. 4,
ll. 21-42), contends that it would have been obvious to substitute a peelable
seal (at 68) in Ausnit for the lines of perforation 54 to provide access to the
slider, “because these two slider accessing means were art-recognized
equivalents at the time the invention was made” (Answer 5). Appellants do
not contest the Examiner’s finding that a peelable seal securing the
uppermost edges of the package walls and lines of perforation were art-
recognized equivalent forms of one-time breakable seals for providing slider
access.
Appellants instead point out that Thomas’ upstanding panels 36, 38
are separate portions of web material thermally fused to the body panels 12,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013