Appeal No. 2006-1902 Page 3
Application No. 10/317,848
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness based on the cited prior art.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner determined that Taylor
discloses a rotary packaging machine (10) including all of the elements recited in
the claim except for the deflecting and closing members (19, 27) deflecting the
closed bag material laterally relative to the direction of travel of the bag material to
prevent product from being located between the jaws when forming the seals.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 5). The examiner relies on Goodenough, which discloses
a form-fill-seal machine, to show deflecting and closing members (22, 22’) which
are offset so as to deflect the closed bag material (6) laterally relative to the
direction of travel of the bag material. (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 5-6). The
examiner contends that the offset pads (22, 22’) of Goodenough inherently prevent
the product being packaged from entering the sealing jaws, because they create a
sinusoidal path for the bag material as the pads close and deflect the bag material.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 10). The examiner determined,
It would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art, at the time appellant’s invention
was made, to have modified the Taylor deflecting and
closing members (19, 27) to have been offset in the
direction of travel of the material so as to deflect the
closed bag material laterally relative to the direction to at
least substantially prevent product being located between
the jaws when forming the seals, as suggested by
Goodenough et al., in order to create a sinuous or
tortuous path in the web of material to make travel of
product therethrough nearly impossible. (Examiner’s
Answer, p. 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007