Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 also releasable by cutting or severing when the user is ready to access the
2 contents of the package. Because Lizio teaches securing tapes 32 that are
3 sealing means and are releasable by cutting or severing, we find that an
4 artisan would have been led to make the sealing means strong enough to
5 keep the wrapped package in a compressed form, while being able to release
6 the sealing tape when needed. Thus, we find that an artisan would have
7 been motivated to put lines of weakness on the sealing means 32 of Lizio to
8 provide easier severing of the closure, as advanced by the Examiner
9 (Answer 3).
10 From all of the above, we are not convinced of error on the part of the
11 Examiner in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
12 unpatentable over Lizio in view of Kim. Accordingly, we hold that the
13 teachings and suggestions of Lizio and Kim would have suggested the
14 subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
16 Turning to claim 7, we find from facts 24 and 25 that Miller describes
17 the pressure sensitive adhesive to be of a well-known type and that the
18 release material also represents a well-known category of material. From
19 this description of Miller, we agree with the Examiner (Answer 4) that in
20 view of Miller's description of providing a package closure of re-sealable
21 adhesive material, it would have been obvious to an artisan to have applied
22 the teaching of a re-sealable adhesive closure to the package of Lizio. We
23 are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that there is no need to address
24 the propriety of the application of Miller as a secondary reference to a claim
25 that is narrower in scope than claim 1. From our findings, supra, with
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013