Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 1995)). In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more
2 factors may predominate. Id. at 962-63, 1 USPQ2d at 1201.
3
4
5 ANALYSIS
6 We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
7 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lizio in view of Kim. From the use of
8 the transitional phrase "characterized in that" in claim 1, we find the
9 language to be open-ended. As a result, we find that the language in claim 1
10 "wherein said one or more products expand upon opening of said first
11 closure member" is not limited to expansion immediately upon opening of
12 the first closure member. Rather, claim 1 is broad enough to encompass the
13 one or more products expanding after opening of the first closure member
14 32, 42, or 46 (fact 12); unfolding of the expansion chamber 20 (id.), and
15 releasing of the tension on the folds 24 (facts 13-16).
16 With this claim construction in mind, we find that Lizio describes
17 expanding one or more of said products upon opening of said first closure
18 member 32, 42, or 46. In addition, from the description in Lizio (facts 11
19 and 12) that the sealing means 32 releasably hold the fold wrapped
20 expansion chamber 20 in position around material containing portion 18, and
21 the securing means 32 is cut or severed when the user is ready to use the
22 articles, we find that Lizio describes sealing means 32 that are strong enough
23 to seal the package in compressed form, but are also releasable by cutting or
24 severing when the user is ready to access the contents of the package.
25 Because the sealing means 32 both seal the package and are releasable when
26 needed, we find that an artisan would have been led to provide a line of
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013