wherein the bag comprises a heat-shrinkable multilayer film
comprising:
(1) a first layer, which is an inside bag layer, and
which comprises polyolefin;
(2) a second layer comprising at least one member
selected from the group consisting of polyolefin, polystyrene,
and polyurethane;
(3) a third layer comprising at least one member
selected from the group consisting of amorphous polyester and
polyester having a melting point of from about 130°C to about
260°C; and
(4) a fourth layer, which is an outside bag layer, the
fourth layer comprising at least one member selected from the
group consisting of polyester, polyamide, polypropylene and
polyurethane; and
wherein the bag is produced by sealing the first layer
to itself, whereby the first layer is an inside bag layer and the
fourth layer is an outside bag layer;
(B) repeating the placing step with a second product and a
second bag, whereby a second bagged product results;
(C) stacking at least the first and second bagged products
so that the excess bag length of each of the bagged products are
on top of one another and within a sealing distance of a meansfor
heat-sealing;
(D) heat-sealing the inside layer of first bag to itself in
the region between the open end of the first bag and the product,
and the inside layer of the second bag to itself in the region
between the open end of the second bag and the product, so that
the first product is completely sealed within the first bag and
the second product is completely sealed with the second bag, the
sealing being carried out at a temperature so that the resulting
packaged products can be freely separated from one another
without layer delamination.
THE PRIOR ART
The items relied on by the examiner to support the final
rejection are:
Bauer et al. (Bauer) 5,837,358 Nov. 17, 1998
The prior art practice of stack-sealing certain commercially
available bags which is described on pages 1 and 2 of the
appellants’ specification (the admitted prior art).
THE REJECTION
Claims 22-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Bauer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007