Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
would have reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the art that
appellants, at the time of filing the application, had possession
of such a hybrid embodiment.
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 37 through 41, 45, 48 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 34 through 37,
40 through 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53 through 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Todd in view of
Herz, we agree with the examiner’s assessment of Todd set forth
on page 4 of the answer. More specifically, we agree that Todd
teaches a process of making a reclosable package comprising the
steps of feeding a supply of package film (14) in a package
forming direction, folding the film about a bottom crease (at
plow assembly 24) to form opposing package walls or panels (26),
feeding a supply of reclosable zipper material from supply reel
(191) between the opposing package walls (26) and sealing the
zipper to the package walls at the same time that a bottom seal
is applied to the package at seal station (32). See column 5,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007