Appeal 2006-3080
Application 10/336,954
When so interpreted, claim 10 encompasses an embodiment wherein
the sealing strip is indirectly joined to the package walls as argued by the
Examiner. This is evinced by, for example, Appellants' Figures 16 and 17
and the Specification disclosures relating thereto. Similarly, the Examiner
also correctly finds that claim 10 encompasses an embodiment wherein the
sealing strip is joined to package walls by way of an uppermost joint line
which is below the uppermost joint line between the zipper flange and
package wall. Again, this is evinced by, for example, Appellants' Figures 16
and 17 and the Specification disclosures relating thereto.
Significantly, the Appellants do not contest with any reasonable
specificity the above-noted interpretations of appealed claim 10. See the
Brief in its entirety.
Under these circumstances, it is our determination that the Examiner
has established a prima facie case of anticipation which the Appellants have
failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary. We
hereby sustain, therefore, the § 102 rejection of argued claim 10 and non-
argue claim 11 as being anticipated by Strand.
Concerning the § 103 rejection, it is the Examiner's basic position that
the applied prior art would have suggested modifying the Figure 5 package
embodiment so that the tamper evident seal or web 117 (i.e., sealing strip),
rather than being joined to the package walls at the zipper flanges, is directly
joined to the walls at a location below the flange/wall joint line, particularly
in view of Figures 17 and 18 of Strand which show these two types of
dispositions to be known in this art (Final Office Action 2-3; Answer 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013