Appeal 2006-0546
Application 10/066,921
According to the Examiner, “Ausnit shows a package forming apparatus
which comprises a means for providing a continuous film 14 in a horizontal plane,
means for placing a product on the film (15), means for longitudinally folding the
film (38), means for feeding a continuous zipper adjacent the longitudinal fold of
the film (24), means for sealing the zipper to the film (42), means for sealing the
longitudinal edges of the folded film (40) and means for sealing and cutting the
packages crosswise (12)” (Answer 3).
The Examiner also indicates that “Belmont shows a package forming
apparatus which comprises a means for providing a continuous film 14 in a vertical
plane, means for longitudinally folding the film along its center (column 4, line
26), means for longitudinal feeding a continuous zipper to the film (14). The
patent teaches alternative embodiments wherein the continuous zipper is fed either
to the longitudinal edge of the film (Figures 3a and 3b) or adjacent the central fold
of the film (Figure 3c)” (id.).
The Examiner concludes that “[i]n both the Ausnit and Belmont operations
the feeding of the zipper inside the longitudinal fold provides protection from
contamination to the zipper in the finished package. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill[] in the art to position the zipper of Malin adjacent the fold of
the film as taught by either Ausnit or Belmont to provide protection to the zipper”
(id.).
Appellants’ arguments unpersuasively focus on the individual differences
between the limitations of claim 1 and each of the applied references. It is
apparent, however, from the Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer, that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007