Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 weakness on the sealing means 32 of Lizio as taught by Kim (facts 20 and
2 21), as a combination of familiar elements according to known methods,
3 yielding a predictable result. See KSR at 1739. This is supported by the
4 description in Kim (fact 18) that the perforated punch lines or other lines of
5 weakness facilitate easy removal of the tear strip for opening the container.
6 Thus, we find that the teachings and suggestions of Lizio and Kim would
7 have suggested the subject matter of claim 1, as advanced by the Examiner
8 and amplified by our comments.
9 We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 6) that since the
10 articles of Lizio will have no room to expand upon opening of the so-called
11 first closure member, the disclosure of Lizio falls outside the scope of the
12 claims. As we found in facts 11-14, when the releasable sealing means 32
13 are cut or severed, the expansion chamber is unfolded and the tension of the
14 folds is broken, the compressed articles will bloom and expand upwardly
15 into expansion chamber 20. As described in fact 15, the size and shape of
16 the expansion chamber is such that it will accommodate the fully expanded
17 articles 22 without affecting the seals at end 14 or edge 28.
18 Nor are we persuaded by Appellants' contention (Br. 7) that an artisan
19 would be loath to place Kim's lines of weakness on Lizio's closure members
20 for fear that they would prematurely break. As we found, supra, from the
21 description (facts 11-12) that the sealing means 32 releasably hold the fold
22 wrapped expansion chamber 20 in position around material containing
23 portion 18, and the securing means 32 is cut or severed when the user is
24 ready to use the articles, we find that Lizio describes having sealing means
25 32 that are strong enough to seal the package in compressed form, but are
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013