Appeal No. 1998-3425
Application 08/502,977
those seen in Marshall, are sensitive to changes in bag size
and thickness of the plastic film and cause the dispensed bags
to be wrinkled as they are withdrawn, whereas the
configuration of the dispensing slot disclosed in the Wilfong
patent is said to overcome those disadvantages of the zig-zag
slot design. Given this situation, we see no reason why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to merely
truncate the crests and roots of the sawtoothed edge surfaces
in Marshall as is urged by the examiner, since such an
arrangement would appear, because of the truncated teeth, to
be even more sensitive to changes in thickness of the plastic
film from which the bags
are made than the sawtooth arrangement presently seen in
Marshall. For this added reason, we refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of clams 8 and 9 on appeal under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 based on the collective teachings of Marshall and
Wilfong.
We have also reviewed the teachings of Gluck and
Shimasaki applied by the examiner against dependent claims 4
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007