Appeal No. 2006-1795 3
Application No. 10/269,057
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after consideration of
the record before us, the evidence relied upon fails to support the obviousness rejection
made by the examiner.
We focus our review on independent claims 1 and 8. In the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 8, the examiner has determined that Kreager discloses all of the
elements of the claimed apparatus and method except for an “elongated” action face
including a “single flat pressing portion.” (Examiner’s Answer, pages 4-5).
To address this deficiency, the examiner relied on Voller, noting, “Voller discloses
a method and apparatus that comprising [sic, comprises] an opposing jaw 38 with at least
one elongated action face 42 including a single flat pressing portion….” (Examiner’s
Answer, page 5). The examiner contends that the flat pressing portion of Voller, “would
provide a longer bonding surface between the two thermoplastic layers and thus a
stronger seal.” (Examiner’s Answer, page 5). With regard to claims 1 and 8, the
examiner has determined that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains in
view of what is taught by Voller to replace Kreager’s action face and groove with
Voller’s action face having a flat pressing portion for a better sealing surface and thus a
better seal. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007