Appeal No. 2005-0485
Application No. 09/303,632
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
April 29, 2004 and October 18, 2004) and the answer (mailed
August 11, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 32, 35 through 37,
41 and 42 as being anticipated by Gaible
Gaible discloses “a container such as a clear flexible bag
30 formed with a pair of [extruded] plastic side walls 32a and
32b which may be heat-sealed together along their edges 33a, 33b
to define a container interior 34 having an open end 36” (column
4, lines 34 through 38). The container also includes an
interlocking closure device comprising first and second closure
strips 218 and 220 heat-sealed to respective upper edge portions
37 of the side walls 32a and 32b.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007