Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
Regarding the rejection of claims 37 through 41, 45, 48 and
51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement, the examiner is of the
view that appellants’ disclosure does not support an embodiment
like that set forth in the above-enumerated claims which has both
sequential sealing of the zipper to the package walls, as is
evident in the embodiment of Figures 14-16 of the application
drawings, and opening of the zipper for the subsequent filling of
the package, as generally disclosed regarding the embodiments of
Figures 12 and 13 of the application. Appellants respond by
merely urging (brief, page 5) that
it is not inappropriate to claim
features of different disclosed embodiments,
particularly when the disclosed embodiments
are similar, the additional elements are
added in dependent claims, and unreasonable
experimentation would not be required after
review of the disclosure to combine the
various elements.
Absent any meaningful explanation directed to the specific
circumstances and facts of this case, appellants’ generalized
assertions in the brief and reply brief concerning the examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007