Appeal No. 2003-058
Application 09/390,190
admission, fails to respond to the limitations in independent
claim 8 requiring an aligning handle attachable to each support
member when the facings are placed in proximate contact, the
limitations in independent claim 19 requiring an aligning handle
for aligning opposed facings prior to installation on the sealing
carriage, and the limitations in independent claim 27 requiring
two support members each having at least one threaded receiver
for receiving a bolt and an aligning handle having a plurality of
attaching bolts threadable into the threaded receivers when the
opposed facings on the support members are in proximate contact.
The various secondary prior art items applied by the examiner in
combination with Malin to support the obviousness rejections of
these claims and the claims depending therefrom do not cure these
deficiencies.
Runo, combined with Malin by the examiner for the rather
dubious proposition that their collective teachings would have
suggested a reclose module having zipper seal facings and jaw
facings located approximately equidistant from the axis of force
vectors as recited in claim 1, fails to account for the above
noted failings of Malin with respect to the limitations in the
claim requiring the reclose module to be a single unit that can
be installed on and removed from the sealing carriage as a unit.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007