Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 8
Application No. 10/164,670
suggestion in either reference to use seals at the bottom of the bag to assist in
forming a flat bottom for the bag. Further, because the diagonal seals of
McClintock are taught only at the top of the bag to improve flow from the bag, and
thus directed to a different problem, we do not find implicit motivation to apply the
teachings of McClintock to the bag of Noguchi to form the bag as recited in claim
25. As such, we hold that a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the
understandings and knowledge reflected in Noguchi and McClintock, and
motivated by the general problem facing the inventor of creating a reclosable bag
that would remain in an upright position when filled, would not have been led to
make the combination recited in the claims. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78
USPQ2d at 1337. Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 14, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 16, 17, 26, and 27 all rely on the
underlying combination of Noguchi and McClintock and further rely on Stolmeier,
Dickson, or Furukawa. Answer, pp. 3-5. We find that the teachings of Stolmeier,
Dickson, and Furukawa do not cure the deficiencies of Noguchi and McClintock.
In particular, neither Stolmeier, Dickson, nor Furukawa teach or suggest a
reclosable bag having gusset sidewalls in which “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” as recited in claim 25. Although Dickson appears to
disclose the same bonding of the front and rear walls to the adjacent gusset
sidewalls to make a block end, it teaches this bonding for use at the mouth of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007