Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
a tab releasably attached to the port wherein detachment
of the tab permits the perforator to pierce the film.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to a sealed container made of a film material.
The container has a port with a perforator and a tab attached to it.
Detachment of the tab allows the perforator to pierce the film.
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Foran US 4,767,407 Aug. 30, 1988
Adolf US 5,334,180 Aug. 2, 1994
Richmond US 6,068,617 May 30, 2000
3. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 45-49
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 45-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Richmond (Answer 3). The Examiner cites Richmond as
disclosing “the device substantially as claimed” (id.). The Examiner
concedes that Richmond does not disclose that the perforator is movably
attached to the port (id. at 4).
To meet this deficiency, the Examiner points out that “Richmond
clearly discloses a connector and a spike or perforator as a part of his
device” (id.). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill would have
considered it obvious “to attach the spike to the port in the invention
disclosed by Richmond, since it has been held that forming in one piece an
article that has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves
only routine s[k]ill in the art” (id., citing § MPEP 2144.04).
Appellants argue that Richmond does not “disclose[] or suggest[] a
folded-film container having a perforator attached to a port and a tab
attached to the port, the detachment of the tab permitting the perforator to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013