Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection are not persuasive.
Like the examiner, it appears to us that independent claim 34 is
directed to the embodiment of Figures 14-16 of the application
drawings, wherein the first and second zipper flanges (40, 42)
are sequentially sealed to the package walls (116, 118) so that
filling between the zipper and the package wall (118) that is not
sealed to a zipper flange (referred to by appellants on pages 6
and 7 of the brief as “behind the zipper” filling) can occur
without opening of the zipper (see, particularly specification,
page 11, line 13 thru page 12, line 11). By contrast, claim 37,
which depends from claim 34, appears to be directed to the
embodiment of Figures 12 and 13, wherein the zipper flanges are
apparently simultaneously sealed to the package walls (at the
first sealing station 90) and the closed zipper is subsequently
opened at slider opening station (96) to allow filling of the
package through the reclosable zipper. Appellants have provided
no explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have attempted to combine such apparently incompatible aspects of
these two different embodiments of the disclosed invention into
one embodiment, and have not explained why the specification
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007