Appeal 2007-2440
Application 10/913,902
rubbers, including styrenic rubbers, as required by claims 2 and 3,
respectively are described and anticipated by Kobe.
An envelope is fairly characterizable as a bag, as required by claim 4.
Well before the close of the twentieth century, persons of ordinary
skill in the art were familiar with resealable containers having resealable
sealing means affixed to opposing inner faces of the containers. Familiar
mechanical examples include bags closed with mutually engaging press-fit
strips, hook-and-loop assemblies, and slide fasteners—each perhaps better
known to the consuming public in the United States by trademarks used by
prominent manufacturers. Resealable adhesive closures were also known, as
shown by Miller, of record in this proceeding.
To the extent a finder of fact would not find that Kobe describes
envelopes or other containers having the resealable system shown in
Figure 4. We also find that the ordinary person would have taken the
teachings of Kobe in combination with his own knowledge of resealable
containers and been in possession of the invention as claimed in any of
claims 1–5, 10, 11, 13, 14, or 16.
In the alternative, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that replacing known refastenable means
with the refastenable means described by Kobe would provide useful
resealable containers. The reasonable expectation of successfully using a
known equivalent means demonstrates that the claimed invention would
have been obvious.
We leave it to the Examiner and Varanese to consider whether
additional prior art would be required to render containers having heat
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013