Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
The Examiner provides reasons in support of the rejections in the
Examiner's Answer (mailed October 11, 2005). Appellants present
opposing arguments in the Brief (filed July 7, 2005).1
OPINION
The Thompson rejection
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Thompson. In making this rejection, the Examiner relies on
the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Thompson. The deficiency of Thompson lies in
the positioning of the interlocking reclosure strips 17, 18 at ends of the lips
26, 27 that are secured to bag panels 10, 11, rather than at ends free of
attachment to the bag panels, as required to meet Appellants’ claim 1.
Appellants point out that Thompson (Fig. 4) discloses the interlocking
members (interlocking reclosure strips 17, 18) being positioned on the
flanges (lips 26, 27 of zipper strip 23) at ends which are opposite from the
ends (near folded nose portion 25) which are free of attachment to the first
and second walls (Br. 5). Therefore, as correctly noted by Appellants (id.),
1 Compliance of the specification with 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) is a petitionable
matter (MPEP § 1002.02(c) – item 4), not an appealable matter (MPEP §
1201). Accordingly, we will not review the first issue raised on page 4 of
the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013