Appeal 2006-0546
Application 10/066,921
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Malin in view of Ausnit or Belmont.
In the Appellants’ Brief, only the features of independent claim 1 have been
argued with specificity. None of the other claims have been separately argued in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 13, 2004). As a
consequence, in our disposition of this appeal, we will focus on representative
independent claim 1 with which the other claims will stand or fall. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete discussion of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning
the above noted rejection.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of Appellants’ arguments set forth in the
Brief, Appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the
Examiner. For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we will sustain this
rejection.
The Appellants and the Examiner agree that Malin discloses a Horizontal-
Form-Fill-and-Seal (HFFS) packing apparatus (Spec. 1; Answer para. bridging 2-
3). The Appellants and the Examiner also agree that Malin differs from the
invention described in claim 1 in that it does not disclose the claim limitation
“means for feeding a continuous supply of zippers between a center of [the] length
of packaging film and [the] consumer products” (Br. 6; Answer 3). The Examiner
relies on the teachings of either Ausnit or Belmont to meet this limitation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007