Appeal No. 2006-1779
Application No. 10/249,810
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the following determinations.
Like appellants’ packaging container, Takashi discloses a bag comprising a
front film member 1a and a rear film member 1b, an opening 2, a fastener 3,
including a pair of sealing tapes 9 (akin to appellants’ connecting flaps) provided
with a female profile 3a and a male profile 3b, respectively, arranged along the
opening 2 and a pair of side gussets 4 bonded to the inner surface of either one of
the film members 1a, 1b by means of a sealing tape 9. As illustrated in Figures 1
and 20, the upper ends of the gussets end below the profiles 3a and 3b and above a
lower edge of the sealing tapes 9.
The examiner recognizes that Takashi lacks a slide engaging across the
profiled strips as called for in appellants’ independent claim 1 but finds that Healy
teaches such a slide in the form of slider 32 (Figure 4) moved in one direction to
open the interfitting slot and rib structure 34 of the slide zipper seal and moved in
the opposite direction to fit the slot and rib structure together to seal the bag (col. 4,
ll. 24-30). The examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to provide the fastener
of Takashi with a slide as taught by Healy in order to facilitate the opening and
closing of the closure device (answer, p. 3).
Appellants (brief, p. 12) argue that it is not possible to simply use the slide
of Healy in the bag of Takashi because the slide of Healy has no sealing tape
attached thereto and cannot be separated like the fastener profiles 3a, 3b for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007