Appeal 2006-3345
Application 10/256,982
2. Claims 3, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kujubu and Kristen.
3. Claims 1-8, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.1
PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
ISSUE
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, and
11-13 as anticipated by Kujubu and claims 3 and 10 as obvious in view of Kujubu
and Kristen, because Kujubu does not disclose a sealing bar that is continuously
heated during each of the supporting, generating, and closing steps, as required by
claim 9 (Br. 6-9). Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14 and 16-18 as anticipated by Kujubu and claim 15 as obvious in view of
Kujubu and Kristen, because Kujubu does not disclose a heater for a sealing bar
continuously connected to a source of current to generate heat with at least one
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
of independent claim 14 and its dependent claims 16-18 (Answer 6). The
Examiner also partially withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, of claim 1 based on the use of the word “operable”; however, claim 1
and its dependent claims 2-8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, on other grounds (Answer 6). Although the Examiner stated in the
Final Office Action that claims 9-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the Examiner did not provide any explanation of the basis for the
rejection of these claims. As such, to the extent that the Examiner intended to
reject these claims, we decline to sustain the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013