Appeal No. 2006-1300
Application No. 08/203,672
Noting Graham’s compartment-enclosed label, the
appellants contend that “[i]n contrast, the writing area of
the present invention is a writing area formed integral
with and from the bag by the same sealing technique as the
enclosure, so that . . . the area is on the bag” (main
brief, page 9). In the same vein, the appellants urge that
“[i]n further contrast, the writing area of the present
invention does not require an outer seal to be formed as
does Graham (Seal 17) and thus, further distinguishes from
Graham” (main brief, page 9).
This line of argument fails because it is not
commensurate with the actual scope of claim 20. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982)
(“[m]any of appellant's arguments fail from the outset
because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims”). With regard to the so-called “writing
area” discussed by the appellants, claim 20 merely calls
for “a section located remote from said enclosure and
adapted for receiving thereon information about a content
of said bag.” Graham’s label 23, which is part of the
pouch or bag 11, constitutes such a section as it is
located remote from the enclosure (compartment 27) and is
adapted for receiving thereon information about a content
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007