Appeal No. 97-3402
Application No. 08/513,705
All four independent claims recite an outer bag and an
inner liner joined to the outer bag, and require that the
inner liner be “larger in size than the outer bag.” As the
appellant explained in the specification, there is a reason
for this, and it is “to allow for complete filling and
stretching of the bulk bag container to occur” (specification,
page 7). The appellant argues that this is a patentable
distinction over the bulk bag disclosed by Futerman, equating
“larger in size” to “larger in volume” (Brief, page 5). This
interpretation is supported by the examples set forth on pages
9 and 10 of the specification, wherein the dimensions of the
inner liner are appreciably greater than those of the outer
bag (pages 9 and 10).
This feature is not taught by Futerman, which also is
directed to a bulk storage container having an outer bag and
an inner liner. The reference teaches that the circumference
of the liner is “slightly less” than that of the outer bag
(column 2, lines 50 and 51). Notwithstanding this, the
examiner has taken the position that since in Futerman the
length of the inner liner is greater than the outer bag, the
volume of the inner liner will be greater even when
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007