Appeal No. 2006-0335
Application No. 10/301,308
sequentially seal the zipper flanges in Todd to the package walls
because appellants have allegedly “not disclosed that such
sealing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose,
or solves a stated problem” (answer, page 4). It is this aspect
of the rejection which appellants have challenged in their brief
(pages 6-7). Given that the disclosure in Todd specifically
indicates that the zipper material is sealed to the package walls
(26) in the same operation that the bottom seal is formed on the
package at seal station (32), which teachings evidence a desire
for simultaneous sealing of the zipper material by zipper seal
bars (190), and given the lack of any disclosure in either Todd
or Herz concerning any other manner of sealing the zipper to the
package, we find the examiner’s bare assertion of obvious design
choice to be without foundation. Moreover, it is apparent that
appellants’ have refuted the examiner’s assertions in the answer
that the sequential sealing of the zipper halves as required in
the claims on appeal is not disclosed by appellants to provide an
advantage and/or not used for a particular purpose.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of claims
34 through 37, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007