Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 Kim's lines of weakness on Lizio's first closure members for fear that they
2 would prematurely break. Appellants additionally contend (id.) that
3 By applying the teachings of Kim, the “second closure
4 member” (16) will indeed comprise an adhesive closure, but
5 that adhesive closure may further comprise “spaced perforated
6 punch lines” . . . . While the perforated punch lines might make
7 the “second closure member” (16) of Lizio easier to rupture, the
8 resulting holes would facilitate the communication with and
9 contamination by the surrounding atmosphere of the container
10 that is steadfastly avoided by Lizio.
11
12 With regard to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
13 being unpatentable over Lizio in view of Kim and Miller, the Examiner
14 contends (Answer 4) that Miller suggests having a package closure of re-
15 sealable adhesive material. Appellants contend (Br. 8) that
16 Applicants believe that there is no need to address the propriety of the
17 application of Miller as a secondary reference to a claim that is
18 narrower in scope than claim 1
19
20 and contend that Lizio teaches away from the proposed combination because
21 Lizio goes to great lengths to ensure that the second closure member remains
22 sealed, so as to keep the articles 22 free from contamination and retain their
23 sterilized characteristics.
24
25 ISSUE
26 With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
27 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lizio in view of Kim, the issue
28 presented is whether the teachings and suggestions of Lizio and Kim would
29 have suggested the limitations of these claims. The issue turns on whether
30 the prior art would have suggested providing Lizio with a closure severable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013