Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 7
Application No. 10/164,670
We agree, however, with the appellants that the examiner is reading too
much into the disclosure of Noguchi based on the figures. Although the figures
form part of the prior art disclosure and can be relied upon for teachings in the art,
in this case, the examiner has resorted to speculation by inferring disclosure from
the figures that is not clearly shown and not described in the text of the prior art
reference. We do not agree that the figures of Noguchi show all of the claimed
structural features and how they are put together. For example, although Figure 1
appears to show an area about the perimeter of the sides and bottom of the bag that
is sealed, it is not clear how this seal is effected and the disclosure of Noguchi
provides no specific detail about the seals of the bag. Noguchi teaches only that
the inward-folding V-shaped gusset (4), made of single- or multiple-ply film, is
bonded to the sides (5) of the bag (1). Noguchi, para. 0013. Noguchi does not
describe how the bottom of the bag is sealed in order to create the flat bottom
shown in Figure 2, and it is simply not clear from the detail of the bag shown in
Figure 1.
The appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine Noguchi
and McClintock because McClintock discloses diagonal seals only at the top of the
bag adjacent the reclosable seal to improve flow from the bag. The appellants
argue that McClintock provides a different solution to a different problem than the
present invention, because McClintock does not teach using the diagonal seals to
provide a flat bottom for the bag. Reply Brief, p. 1. We agree with the appellants
and find that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either explicitly or
implicitly from the prior art, to modify Noguchi with the seals of McClintock that
would have led to the claimed invention. In particular, there is no teaching or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007