Appeal No. 2006-1779
Application No. 10/249,810
sealing tapes 8, 8 are firmly bonded to the film members
1a and 1b.
While the process disclosed by Takashi differs from that disclosed by
appellants and does not include a step of sealing the gussets partway along their
length to the front and back walls and leaving an area adjoining the upper edge,
prior to insertion and fixation of the closure device (fastener 3), unconnected to
allow insertion of the closure device, it is not apparent, nor have appellants
cogently explained, how appellants’ sequence of connecting steps yields a product
that differs from the product produced in the manner disclosed by Takashi. In the
end, the positioning and connection of the fastener, including profiled portions and
sealing tapes or connecting flaps, the gussets and the front and back walls or film
members of both Takashi and appellants’ invention appear to be the same, though
perhaps arrived at in a slightly different manner. Accordingly, we conclude that
the combined teachings of Takashi and Healy are sufficient to establish a prima
facie case that the product of appellants’ claim 1 and the bag of Takashi, as
modified in view of Healy to provide a slide, reasonably appear to be the same, so
as to shift the burden to appellants to prove otherwise. This the appellants have not
done.
In light of the above, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Takashi in view of Healy. The appellants have not separately
argued the like rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6-8 apart from claim 1, thereby
allowing them to stand or fall with representative claim 1 (see In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007