Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
First of all, we note that Reichental’s references to “the subject of this pending patent
application” (paragraph 11), “the specific details claimed and disclosed in the pending application”
(paragraph 15), “the invention . . . which is the subject of the specification, claims and drawings of the
above application” (paragraph 17), and “the claimed subject matter in the pending application”
(paragraph 18) refer to parent application SN 08/121,751 and not the present application. In that the
presently appealed claims differ in several respect from the claims pending in the parent application at
the time the Reichental declaration was executed, it is not clear how Reichental’s statements relate to
the obviousness issues presented here. Second, there is no evidence in the record, and in particular
videotape Exhibits A and B appended to the Reichental declaration, to support declarant’s opinion that
Insta-Foam has abandoned the technology illustrated in the Willden patent (paragraph 16), and in
particular that Insta-Foam has abandoned their own patented technology in favor of the presently
claimed technology (paragraph 18). As to the remainder of Reichental’s assertions, we have carefully
reviewed videotape Exhibits A and B but find them to be insufficient to establish (a) whether the
VERSAPACKER™ device of Exhibit A forms the plastic bag by using the claimed single center-
folded sheet bag forming technique as opposed to some other bag forming technique, and (b) whether
either the VERSAPACKER™ device of Exhibit A or the ProPacker device of Exhibit B seals the sides
of the bag using means that provide a substantially linear seal along the bag edge that is periodically
interrupted to provide an unsealed portion, as now claimed, as opposed to some other type of sealing
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007