Appeal No. 2001-0109
Application 08/871,898
See Appellant’s specification, page 6, lines 6-11. Therefore,
Appellant’s claim 1 does require structure such that the lip of
the bag lies stretched over the outer surface of the plug.
Upon review of both references as a whole, we find that neither
reference teaches nor suggests a “a lip lies stretched over the
outer surface of the plug”, as recited in claim 1. Ecklund
teaches that the inner diameter of bag (32) and outer diameter
of plug (44) are equal to 1.305 inches. See Column 4, lines 30
and 53. This would create a perfect fit between the bag and
plug. The perfect fit would not cause stretching because the
inner diameter of the lip of the bag and the outer surface
diameter of the plug is equal. In contrast, stretching would
be the result of having a plug diameter greater than the inner
diameter of the lip of the bag.
Kubota teaches simple “crimping” of a bag (1) to a plug
(15). See Column 4, lines 1-5, see also figure 4. Crimping
causes folds or wrinkles. In contrast, Appellant teaches that
the stretching of his invention removes wrinkles. See
Appellant’s specification, page 6, lines 6-11. Therefore,
Kubota does not teach to stretch the lip of bag (1) to cover a
plug as claimed by Appellant.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007