Ex Parte Hall - Page 2

                Appeal 2006-3068                                                                                                              
                Application 10/721,299                                                                                                        

                         1.  A food packaging closure apparatus comprising:                                                                   
                a tubular body having a length with opposite first and second ends, the                                                       
                second end of the tubular body having means for attaching the body second end to                                              
                packaging of a food product; and,                                                                                             
                a lid that is removably attachable to the first end of the tubular body.                                                      
                         14.  A method of preserving a food product in food packaging that has a                                              
                food packaging opening, the method comprising:                                                                                
                providing a tubular body that has a length with opposite first and second                                                     
                ends;                                                                                                                         
                positioning the second end of the tubular body on the food product so that                                                    
                the tubular body extends around the food packaging opening;                                                                   
                providing a lid that is removably attachable to the first end of the tubular                                                  
                body; and                                                                                                                     
                removably attaching the lid to the first end of the tubular body.                                                             
                                                         THE REFERENCE                                                                        
                Peebles                                            US 5,964,365                                Oct. 12, 1999                  
                                                         THE REJECTIONS                                                                       
                         The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20                                           
                under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Peebles; claims 6 and 15 under                                                     
                35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Peebles; and claims 10 and 19 under                                                           
                35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Peebles in view of the Appellant’s admitted prior                                             
                art.                                                                                                                          
                                                                OPINION                                                                       
                         We affirm the aforementioned rejections.                                                                             
                         We limit our discussion to the claims separately argued by the Appellant,                                            
                i.e., claims 1, 6-8, 14 and 15 (Br. 5-8).1  See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                                           


                                                                                                                                              
                1 The Appellant mentions claims 2 and 16 but does not provide a substantive                                                   
                argument as to their separate patentability (Br. 7-8).                                                                        

                                                                      2                                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013