Appeal No. 2006-1902 Page 7
Application No. 10/317,848
Taylor to have an additional deflecting member to laterally deflect the tubular bag
material “in order to tuck-in the bag material after sealing of the bag material.”
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 9).
The appellant argues that Masubuchi fails to remedy the deficiencies of the
improper combination of Taylor and Goodenough. The appellant further argues
that even if the combination of Taylor and Goodenough is found proper, the
combination of Masubuchi is not proper. Specifically, the appellant contends that
element (9) of Masubuchi is a tuck-up guide that functions as a feeding device.
The bag material is drawn upward by the guide (9) so that the sealed bag material
remaining is moved upward so as to be located between the cooling members (5).
Product is prevented from engaging the seal until it is cooled by upper clamps (7).
Masubuchi does not mention using this guide (9) as a deflecting member, and the
guide (9) has nothing to do with preventing product from being located between
the sealing jaws. Rather, the tubular bag material is closed upstream of the guide
(9). As such, the appellant argues that there is nothing in Masubuchi that would
suggest to one skilled in the art to incorporate in a rotary packaging machine
deflecting and closing members to close and deflect the tubular bag material to
prevent product being located between the sealing jaws. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-
9).
We agree with the appellant. For the reasons provided above, we find that
there is no motivation, teaching, or suggestion to combine Taylor and
Goodenough. We further find that there is no motivation to modify the Taylor
device with the guide (9) of Masubuchi. The guide (9) is used to draw the sealed
portion of the tubular bag material back upstream so that it is between the cooling
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007