Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 6
Application No. 10/164,670
Noguchi with the diagonal seals of McClintock in order to improve flow of the
product from the bag. Answer, p. 3.
We make the following observations regarding the examiner’s rejection. We
note that claim 25 does not require “the front and rear wall being bonded to the
gusset sidewalls adjacent the reclosable seal by diagonal seals” as stated by the
examiner. Rather, claim 25 requires the front wall and the rear wall to be bonded
to the adjacent gusset sidewalls opposite the reclosable seal. Further, we note that
claim 25 makes no mention of diagonal seals.
The appellants argue, inter alia, that Noguchi does not teach a structure that
promotes formation of a more planar bottom to the filled bag. In particular, the
appellants contend that Noguchi does not disclose a seal of the front wall to a
gusset wall and the rear wall to a gusset wall (with no seal of gusset wall to gusset
wall) at the bottom of the bag to form a volume removed from the volume of the
bag and into which product will not flow during bag filling. Brief, p. 6. The
appellants further argue that the examiner appears to be guessing as to what the
figures of Noguchi disclose about the formation of the bottom of the bags since
nothing in the text of Noguchi supports the examiner’s position. Brief, p. 7.
We note that claim 25 does not explicitly require that the gussets walls not
be sealed to one another. Rather, claim 25 merely recites that the front wall and
the rear wall are bonded to the adjacent gusset sidewalls opposite the reclosable
seal to form volume regions within said reclosable bag opposite the reclosable seal
that are removed from the volume of the reclosable bag thereby assisting in
forming a substantially flat bottom to the reclosable bag.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007