Appeal No. 2006-1862
Application No. 09/954,443
The examiner argues that “Nakamura, in this disclosure,
simply emphasizes that the heat pipe is a better choice for
heating the heat-sealing jaws in the lengthwise direction, but
for the heating of the heat-sealing jaws in the radial direction,
the heat conducting member (other than the heat pipe) such as the
one discloses [sic] in the Nakamura present invention is more
suitable” (answer, page 6).
The examiner has not provided evidence that the prior art
heat pipes disclosed by Nakamura would provide adequate heating
of the heat-sealing jaws in the radial direction if the material
being bagged contains a liquid. The exemplified articles bagged
by those prior art heat pipes are potato chips, fruits, candies,
vegetables, screws, nails and bolts (col. 1, lines 23-25), and
Nakamura does not disclose that the prior art heat pipes are
effective for bagging liquids. The only apparatus relied upon by
the examiner for bagging liquids is that of Eisenstadt wherein
the heating elements used to seal the bags appear to be
electrically heated (as indicated by the wire attached to heating
element 48 in figure 3a), solid heating elements.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
appellants’ claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007