Appeal No. 2006-1740
Application No. 10/337,124
the wall segments. It is therefore
respectfully submitted that the Tilman
and Strand references, alone or in
combination, do not disclose or suggest
the presently claimed invention [Brief,
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6].
The examiner contends that appellants’ argument is “a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable
invention without specifically pointing out how the
language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from
the references as applied in the rejection” (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6).
We note that the examiner relies on Strand to teach
“that it is known in the art to provide a peel seal
connecting the first and second walls below the
interlocking members in an analogous bag” (Answer, page 3).
We also note that appellants have not contested the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to this issue.
Instead, appellants’ argument focuses on Strand’s top edge
as being “formed by folding the web or film with nothing
resembling a ‘first frangible connection’ between the wall
segments.” We are unpersuaded by this argument since the
examiner is relying on Tilman, through the incorporated
disclosure of Thomas, to teach the frangible connection of
the upstanding panels as known in the art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8
and 47 as being unpatentable over Tilman and Strand.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting all appealed
claims is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007