Appeal No. 2006-1780
Application No. 10/292,076
portion of the edges need not extend for the entire length of the
superimposed edges, as it does in the preferred embodiment shown
in Fig. 1. The permanent seal may be provided at any portion and
for any desired length of the superimposed edges” (page 6 of
specification, second paragraph). Consequently, in the absence
of a disclosed particular advantage for having no more than about
fifty percent of the superimposed edges permanently sealed, we
are satisfied that it would have been a matter of obvious design
choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to permanently seal
any percentage of the superimposed edges contingent upon the
particular use of the bag. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188
USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Appellants contend that “[n]othing in the reference suggests
a bag formed of multiple sheets wherein a portion of the
perimeter is permanently sealed and a portion of the perimeter is
releasably sealed” (page 5 of brief, first sentence). However,
claim 1 on appeal does not require any portion of the perimeter
to be releasably sealed but only that no more than about fifty
percent of the superimposed edges are permanently sealed.
Manifestly, the claims embrace bags wherein the edges that are
not permanently sealed are not sealed at all.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007