Appeal 2006-1290
Application 10/144,345
matter of claims 13, 18, and 30, which are dependent on claims 11, 16, and
26 respectively, is not suggested by Watanabe.
Yano does not suggest modifying the position of the closure so as to
be integral with the top edge of the sidewall and disposed above the top edge
of the second side wall. Such a change would not be a mere matter of design
because Yano discloses that the placement of the closure parallel to the side
edge of the side wall is advantageous. In addition, rotation of the Yano bag
as suggested by the examiner does not result in the claimed position of the
closure. As Yano does not disclose or suggest the placement of the closure
member as claimed, Yano does not suggest the subject matter of claims 11,
16, and 26 or claims 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 27 to 30 dependent
thereon. Independent claim 21 also recites the first portion of the closure
member being integral with the top edge of the side wall and the first and
second portions of the closure member being disposed above the top edge of
the second side wall. Accordingly, Yano also does not teach or suggest the
subject matter of claim 21 or claims 22-25 depending therefrom.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013