Appeal No. 2006-1612 Page 11
Application No. 10/153,376
formed. The figures also clearly show that when the male and female profiles of
the Tominaga fastener are engaged, the locking fins (4) abut the locking hooks (9)
to prevent air from passing between the two sides of the bag.
With regard to collapsibility, Tominaga describes the function of the
resilient partition (10) as to urge the head (3) of the plug (1) outward. This forces
the locking fins (4) of the plug (1) into more tight engagement with the locking
hooks (9) of socket (3) to create the gas- and water-tight seal. (Tominaga, col. 4,
lines 22-34). Tominaga also describes an embodiment that uses a resilient
rectangular tube (19) disposed in a socket (2) and used to urge the head (15) of
plug (1) outward to create such a gas- and water-tight seal. (Tominaga, col. 3,
lines 50-63 and Figure 2). We find that in order for the resilient partition (10) and
the resilient rectangular tube (19) of the embodiments of Tominaga to provide this
biasing force, they must act as collapsible elements. As discussed above, the
biasing force provided by the resilient partition (10) and the resilient rectangular
tube (19) form a hermetic seal when the male and female profiles are engaged with
one another, as recited in independent claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 5 as being unpatentable over Tominaga.
The appellant did not separately argue the patentability of the remaining
rejected dependent claims 4 and 8. Finding no separate basis for patentability of
these dependent claims, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007