Appeal No. 2006-1612 Page 2
Application No. 10/153,376
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a zipper closure for a reclosable bag.
Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of
these claims can be found in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Jaster 3,338,285 Aug. 29, 1967
Singhal 5,189,765 Mar. 02, 1993
Tominaga et al. (“Tominaga”) 5,293,672 Mar. 15, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Singhal.
4. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jaster.
5. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tominaga.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed December 2, 2005) for the examiner's complete
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007