Appeal No. 2006-1300
Application No. 08/203,672
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 20-24 as
being unpatentable over Yanase ‘006 in view of Graham
Yanase ‘006 is a continuation-in-part of Yanase ‘104.
For purposes of the rejection, the examiner relies on the
disclosure by Yanase ‘006 of bag 1, which disclosure is
essentially identical to that discussed above in connection
with Yanase ‘104.
The examiner’s assessment that Yanase ‘006 responds to
all of the limitations in independent claim 20 except for
the one requiring the claimed bag to comprise a section
located remote from the enclosure and adapted for receiving
thereon information about a content of the bag is
reasonable on its face. The appellants have not advanced
any cogent reasoning to support their argument (see page 5
in the reply brief) that the Yanase ‘006 bag also lacks an
access as recited in the claim.
For the reasons discussed above, and notwithstanding
the appellants’ arguments to the contrary (see page 12 in
the main brief), Graham discloses a bag having an
information section of the sort broadly recited in claim
20. Graham also enumerates structural and hygienic
advantages afforded by this information section including a
reduced risk of puncturing a filled bag with a writing
implement. Graham’s description of these advantages would
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007