Appeal No. 2006-1780
Application No. 10/292,076
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably
specific to any particular claim on appeal. Also, appellants
have not presented a substantive argument with respect to the
examiner’s three rejections over Hamilton in view of secondary
references. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 1, and we will limit our consideration to the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection of all the appealed claims over
Hamilton.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
A principal argument advanced by the appellants is that the
bag of Hamilton does not have “no more than about fifty percent”
(claim 1) of its superimposed edges permanently sealed. The
examiner appreciates, however, that Hamilton does not provide an
explicit teaching that the superimposed edges of the bag only
have a portion of the superimposed edge permanently sealed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007