Appeal No. 2006-1780
Application No. 10/292,076
Appellants also maintain that “[t]he reference teaches a
single sheet folded over upon itself” (page 5 of brief, second
paragraph). However, appellants have not refuted the examiner’s
finding that “Hamilton specifically teaches that the same bag
taught in Hamilton formed by folding over a single sheet of
material upon itself can also be made by sealing two or more
discrete sheets to one another in face-to-face or face-to-back
orientation (p. l. 34-37)” (page 14 of answer, second paragraph).
In relevant part Hamilton teaches the following at page 34, lines
34-37:
Alternatively, rather than folding a larger web of material
upon itself to form an enclosure, two or more discrete
smaller pieces of storage wrap material 10 may be utilized
by wrapping them over the item 60 and sealing them to one
another in face-to-face or face-to-back orientation.
We note that appellants base no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness
established by the examiner.
As a final point, in the event of further prosecution of the
subject matter at bar, the examiner should consider whether the
claim recitation “having no more than about fifty percent of
their superimposed edges permanently sealed” has original
descriptive support in the specification in accordance with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007