Appeal 2006-3022
Application 10/286,434
V. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over the admitted prior art and Jurrius and optionally Lunden.
VI. Claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over either Jurrius or
the admitted prior art, and further in view of Perret.
ISSUE
The Examiner contends Jurrius describes an apparatus for sealing a
plastic film that anticipates the claimed invention. The Examiner contends
that the controller (48) is capable of continuously maintaining the
temperature of the sealing element within a specified range for a plurality of
cycles (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that Jurrius does not anticipate or render obvious
the claimed invention. Appellants contend that Jurrius discloses the
temperature is monitored and controlled only during the heating portion of
each cycle (Br. 7, 10).
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (b). The issue turns on whether the Examiner has established a
reasonable belief that the controller unit recited in the Jurrius reference
would have been capable of performing the function of the controller recited
in the appealed claims, and if the Examiner met his initial burden, whether
the Appellants have adequately rebutted the Examiner's position by showing
that the controller element is not capable of performing the function of the
controller of the presently claimed invention. Specifically, the issue is: Is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013