Appeal No. 2006-0680
Application No. 10/041,129
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
June 30, 2005 and November 7, 2005) and answer (mailed September
21, 2005) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
The following passage from the appellants’ specification
describes the admitted prior art practice of stack-sealing
certain commercially available bags:
Recently it has been discovered that certain
commercially-available bags can be sealed when
stacked on top of one another, i.e., without
sticking to one another. This non-sticking
characteristic provides an advantage for packaging
in a vacuum chamber, because the chamber, although
typically having only one sealing means, has more
2 In the final rejection, claims 44-46 also stood rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. Upon reconsideration, the examiner has
withdrawn this rejection (see page 3 in the answer).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007