Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 9
Application No. 10/164,670
sack, rather than “opposite” a reclosable seal. Dickson, Figures 1 and 2 and col. 1,
lines 33-45. As such, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17,
26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under our authority provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter a new ground
of rejection of claims 16, 17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,491,959 to Loefberg1 in view of Stolmeier.
Loefberg discloses a plastic bag (2) comprising a front wall (2a), a rear wall
(2b) and two sidewalls comprised of gusset fold parts (7, 7a, 8, 8a). Loefberg,
Figure 1. Each sidewall connects front wall (2a) to rear wall (2b). Loefberg,
Figure 1. Each sidewall has a gusset along a substantial portion thereof. Loefberg,
col. 2, lines 32-38. Loefberg teaches the use of fold part seals to give the bag an
optimum block shape. In particular, Loefberg describes:
To give a bag of this type an optimum block shape
in the filled condition, first fold part seals 9, 10 are
provided at one side of the bag and first fold part seals 11
and 12 at the other side of the bag. The first fold part
seal 9 connects the upper foil layer 2a with its subjacent
gusset fold part foil layer 7, whilst the first fold part seal
10 connects the subjacent foil layer 2b with the gusset
fold part foil layer 8.
On the other hand fold part seals 11 and 12 have
been formed by uniting the upper foil layer 2a with the
subjacent lower gusset fold part foil layer 7a and foil
layer 2b with the subjacent upper gusset fold part layer
1 U.S. Patent No. 4,491,959 to Loefberg was made of record by the appellants in an Information
Disclosure Statement filed on February 11, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007