Ecolean AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2021

2020004503 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/556,823 09/08/2017 Magnus BORGSTRÖM 4109.625BS 1360
86636 7590 10/19/2021
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
1925 BALLENGER AVENUE, STE. 560
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GOFF II, JOHN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2021 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAGNUS BORGSTRÖM, LENNART FRIBERG,
and LARS ÖSTHOLM
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application
15/556,823 filed Sept. 8, 2017 (“the ’823 App.”); the Final Office Action
dated June 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 16, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 4, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief filed June 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. A video teleconference
hearing was held on October 4, 2021, a transcript of which is of record. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for sealing a flexible package of
collapsible type. Spec. 1, ll. 4–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible
type comprising
providing a first seal extending transverse a filling
channel of the flexible package, and
providing a second seal extending transverse the filling
channel of the flexible package
said second seal overlapping said first seal such that a
combined seal is provided comprising a top portion formed
solely by a first sealing unit, an intermediate portion formed by
the first and a second sealing unit, and a bottom portion formed
solely by the second sealing unit, characterized by
setting operating parameters comprising a time
parameter, a temperature parameter and a pressure parameter
for providing said first seal and for providing said second seal
such that a sealing characteristic below a threshold value is

2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Ecolean AB as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

3
obtained in said top portion and said bottom portion and such
that a sealing characteristic equal to or above the threshold
value is obtained in said intermediate portion.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Name Reference Date
Carnegie, Jr. US 4,055,456 Oct. 25, 1977
Yoshikawa et al.
(“Yoshikawa”)
US 2008/0091299 A1 Apr. 17, 2008
Hesser GB 943,457 Dec. 4, 1963
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:
A. Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 over Hesser in view of Yoshikawa.
B. Claims 4–6 over Hesser and Yoshikawa, further in view of
Carnegie.
Final Act. 2, 6.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”).
After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

4
identified, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
A. Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 over Hesser in view of
Yoshiikawa
Appellant argues claims 1–3 as a group. See Appeal Br. 10. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group. Claims 2 and 3 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Appeal Br. 10. We
separately address Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 7 and 8, which
depend from claim 1.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hesser discloses the limitations of claim 1,
except for “setting operating parameters comprising a time parameter, a
temperature parameter and a pressure parameter,” for which the Examiner
relies on Yoshikawa. Final Act. 2–3. Hesser’s Figures 1 to 5 are reproduced
below.
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

5

Figures 1 to 4 are cross-sectional views illustrating various stages in
the manufacture of a closure. Hesser 2, ll. 50–52. Figure 5 is a perspective
view of the upper end of a bag closed in the method of Figures 1 to 4 in
which surplus bag material above seam 6, 10 is folded over and additionally
connected by a weld seam 12 to the lower part 14 of the surplus. Id. 2, ll,
53–55, 119–125.
The Examiner finds that the “second sealing unit” limitation reads on
elements 3 and 4 of Hesser, the “first sealing unit” limitation reads on
elements 7–9, the “first seal” limitation reads on element 6, and the “second
seal” limitation reads on element 10. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds
that “first” and “second” as used in claim 1 requires two seals and two
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

6
sealing units, but not any particular order of sealing or any particular sealing
unit forming a particular seal. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that second seal
10 overlaps first seal 6, creating an intermediate portion. Id. at 2. The
Examiner finds that the claim terms “a sealing characteristic below a
threshold value” and “a sealing characteristic below a threshold value” read
on the presence or absence of bubbles respectively, in the seam, noting that
the absence of bubbles in the intermediate portion results in “a surprising
high degree of strength.” Id. at 3–4 (citing the discussion on Hesser 2, 6
regarding the impact of the presence of bubbles in a seal). The Examiner
finds that it is well understood in the art of sealing packaging that parameters
for automating the sealing comprise a time parameter, a temperature
parameter, and a pressure parameter as evidenced by Yoshikawa. Id. at 3.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use operating
parameters as evidenced by Yoshikawa to automate provision of the first and
second seals. Id.
Appellant proffers several arguments in response to the rejection. We
address each in turn.
First, Appellant argues that the Examiner identifies the claimed first
seal as two different structures in Hesser, i.e., elements 6 and 10, making the
rejection ambiguous and impossible to review due to alleged picking and
choosing of features. Appeal Br. 6–7.
We disagree with Appellant’s contention. The Examiner consistently
identifies the first seal of claim 1 as element 6 in Hesser. See Final Act. 2–4;
Ans. 9. Appellant’s argument appears to be based at least partially on the
Examiner’s identification of Hesser’s elements 3 and 4 as the second sealing
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

7
unit forming the first seal. See id. The Examiner correctly notes that claim
1 does not require any particular sealing unit to form any particular seal. See
Final Act. 3. “[A]lthough a method claim necessarily recites the steps of the
method in a particular order, as a general rule the claim is not limited to
performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the patent claim
explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc.
v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At most, the
Specification indicates that “[a]ccording to one embodiment the method
further comprises transferring the flexible package from the first sealing unit
to the second sealing unit.” Spec. 7, ll. 28–30 (emphasis added). Claim 2
echoes this language (see Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)), implying that the
further restriction is not required in independent claim 1. Appellant does not
direct us to any evidence, such as a portion of the Specification, in support
of Appellant’s contention that claim 1 should be narrowly interpreted as
requiring the first sealing unit operate before the second sealing unit. See In
re Hampel, 162 F.2d 483, 485 (CCPA 1947) (specific order of steps may be
prima facie obvious when “[t]here is nothing in the instant record which
indicates that the particular order of steps produces results differing in any
way from those which would be brought about if another order of steps were
followed.”); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (selection of
any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence
of new or unexpected results).
As a second point, Appellant argues that Hesser does not disclose the
“overlapping” required of the first and second seals, and is “completely
silent with respect to” a top portion, intermediate portion, and bottom
portion, asserting that Hesser’s “‘shrunken seam 6’ and ‘sealed seam 10’”
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

8
are merely adjacent to one another. Appeal Br. 7. However, Hesser teaches
producing a shrunken seam by welding jaws followed by applying a
secondary hot pressing by suitable pressing jaws to a part of the width of this
seam. Hesser 1, ll. 76–83. The Examiner identifies the seal formed by
Hesser elements 7–9 as the first sealing unit and the seal formed by Hesser
elements 3–4 as the second sealing unit, which accords with claim 1’s
requirements. See Final Act. 2–3. Hesser also teaches pressing seam 6
again “approximately over half its width nearest the top end of the bag” by
means of a further pair of pressing jaws. Id. 2, ll. 88–93. In addition,
Hesser’s Figures 2–5—especially Figure 3—show seal 6 and seal 10
overlapping each other. Appellant’s contention that Hesser’s element 9, a
resistance strip, does not correspond to the entire height of jaws 8 simply
does not support a lack of overlap of seal 6 and seal 10, which overlap is
demonstrated in Hesser’s written description and figures.
Appellant’s third argument is Hesser is silent with respect to the
claimed “operating parameters” and “threshold value,” and the Examiner
ignores these features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner relies on Yoshikawa, not Hesser, for operating
parameters of time, temperature, and pressure. Final Act. 3. “Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1 recites that a sealing characteristic is below (top and bottom
portions), or equal to or above (intermediate portion) a threshold value.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Neither “sealing characteristic” nor
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

9
“threshold value” are defined in the Specification. The Specification
indicates that operating parameters are set
such that a sealing characteristic below a threshold value is
obtained in said top portion and said bottom portion and such
that a sealing characteristic above the threshold value is
obtained in said intermediate portion. Thereby, a sufficient seal
may be provided in the intermediate portion. A quality of the
seal may be adjusted by adjusting the time parameter, the
temperature parameter and the pressure parameter. By way of
example, the seal may be improved by at least one of using a
higher temperature, using a higher pressure, and by letting the
first and/or the second sealing unit operate during a longer
period of time.
. . .
[B]oth the first and [second] seals are needed to provide a
sufficient seal. By sufficient seal is here meant that the seal, or
combined seal, fulfils [sic] a set of seal criteria. The seal
criteria may comprise a strength criterium, . . . , etc.
Spec. 6, ll. 1–13, 23–26.
The threshold value corresponds to the sealing characteristics of
a seal having been exposed to a proper sealing process in order
to form a sufficient or functional seal.
Id. 19, ll. 3–5. Thus, a “sufficient seal” as found in the intermediate portion
meets the sealing characteristics and is equal to or above the threshold value,
which may meet or exceed a strength criterium.
Hesser discloses that bubbles or blisters produced by particles that
develop vapors or gases on heating may develop within the welding seam
(6), but disappear in the zone of secondary pressing (10). Hesser 1, ll. 67–
70; 2, ll. 28–33, 39–43. This secondary pressing achieves “a proper firm and
sealed weld seam.” Id. 2, ll. 43–44; 2, ll. 97–100 (“an intimate connection
of the material of the two walls 1, 2 of the bag in this area” is achieved). As
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

10
the Examiner finds, the seal resulting from the combination of the first and
second seals is without bubbles and has “a surprising high degree of
strength.” Ans. 12 (citing Hesser 1, l. 71–2, l. 6, 39–44). Thus, the
Examiner cites evidence in support of the finding that “strength” and
“bubbles” may be considered to be sealing characteristics “wherein the
threshold value for the sealing characteristic of strength is a seam sealed
with both the first and second seals, and the threshold value for the sealing
characteristic of bubbles is a seam without bubbles,” such that a sealing
characteristic below a threshold value is obtained in the top portion and the
bottom portion by Hesser, and a sealing characteristic equal to or above the
threshold value is obtained in the intermediate portion. See id. at 13.
Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 9) does not address persuasively
the rejection that the Examiner presents.
Appellant’s fourth argument is that “Hesser fails to disclose [] setting
a threshold as recited in Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 13. We note, however, that
claim 1 recites setting operating parameters, but not setting a threshold. See
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Hesser sufficiently teaches “a threshold
value” as recited in claim 1 by disclosing that removal of bubbles or blisters
in the combined seal produces a “firm and sealed weld seam.” See Hesser 2,
ll. 39–44.
Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art would understand
shrunken seam 10 [sic] would be functional if no bubbles are present, i.e.
that the operating parameters are set such that the sealing characteristics of
the first seal is equal or above the threshold value if the sealing zone is
clean.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant thus urges that Hesser does not provide a
sealing characteristic that behaves according to a threshold value, and, in
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

11
fact, teaches away. Id. However, Hesser teaches avoiding the disadvantages
of closing a bag by only a single sealing unit, instead employing a second
sealing unit. Hesser 2, ll. 76–80. Hesser cannot be said to teach away from
the claimed process, which requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant direct us to no portion of Hesser
supporting a contention that the reference teaches away from a sealing
characteristic that behaves according to a threshold value.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Hesser teaches only a single
seal, not two seals. Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant contends that Hesser’s first
heat treatment results in a seam—not a seal—and the second heat treatment
treats the same seam area a second time. Id. at 8. Appellant notes that
Hesser refers to “seam 6” rather than “seal 6.” Id. at 9.
Appellant’s argument is untimely because it is a new argument
presented for the first time in the Reply Brief. The Examiner has had no
opportunity to respond. The argument could have been, but was not,
presented in the Appeal Brief. Under regulations governing appeals to the
Board, a new argument not timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not be
considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal
Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) ) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”); compare also Optivus Tech., Inc. v.
Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument
raised for the first time in the Reply Brief is considered waived); see also 37
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

12
C.F.R. § 41.37 and § 41.41. Because the record contains no such showing,
we will not consider the new argument in the Reply Brief.
On balance, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 as obvious over Hesser in view of Yoshikawa for the reasons
expressed by the Examiner and set forth supra. For the same reasons as
claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). .
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said first
and second seals are provided extending in parallel.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims
App.). The Examiner finds that seal 6 and seal 10 of Hesser are provided
extending in parallel. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that “the rejection is confusing and, ultimately,
incomplete.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to
analyze any of the Graham factors with respect to claim 7, such that
Appellant “lacks the kind of information necessary to give [it]sufficient
notice to be able to effectively respond.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
We first note that Examiner’s discussion of claim 1 is pertinent to the
subject matter of claim 7. Final Act. 2–5. As we also note above, the
Examiner identified the components of Hesser that meet the limitation of
this claim. Final Act 6. In the Answer, the Examiner further clarified that at
least Hesser Figure 5 illustrates seal 6 and seal 10 “extending in parallel.”
Ans. 12. Thus, Appellant’s argument is without merit.
Claim 8
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

13
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said first
and/or second seal is provided by a sealing unit comprising a permanently
heated sealing jaw.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Hesser’s sealing unit 3, 4 comprises “a continuously heated sealing jaw
considered permanently heated as there is no description the jaw is at any
time not heated.” Final Act. 6.
As with claim 8, Appellant argues that “the rejection is confusing and,
ultimately, incomplete.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that the Examiner
fails to analyze any of the Graham factors with respect to claim 8, such that
Appellant “lacks the kind of information necessary to give [it]sufficient
notice to be able to effectively respond.” Id. (Appellant also makes the
argument that “Hesser is completely silent with respect to whether [elements
6 and 10 of Hesser] are ‘provided extending in parallel,’” which is not a
limitation of claim 8.)
We again direct Appellant to the Examiner’s discussion of claim 1 to
resolve any confusion related to the rejection. In addition, Hesser discloses
continuously heated welding jaws and permanently heated welding jaws
interchangeably to distinguish from temporarily heated welding jaws.
Compare Hesser 1, ll. 15–30 (weld seams made by temporarily heating jaws
only have a part of the strength) with id. 1, ll. 36–40 (heating the sheets to
fusion temperature by permanently heated pressing jaws) and 76–80
(producing a shrunken seam by continuously heated welding jaws).
Appellant fails to persuade us of reversible error by a preponderance of the
evidence of record.
B. Obviousness of Claims 4–6 over Hesser in view of Yoshiikawa
and Carnegie
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

14
Claims 4–6 depend from claim 1 and further recite limitations on the
width of the first seal (claim 4), the width of the second seal (claim 5), or the
width of the intermediate portion (claim 6) is in the range of 1 to 5
millimeters. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on Carnegie to teach the claimed width of the
first seal, second seal, or intermediate portion. Final Act. 6. Specifically,
the Examiner finds that Carnegie teaches that conventional seal width is 1.6
mm to 3.2 mm. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use Carnegie’s seal width in Hesser as modified by Yoshikawa to
have a seal width of about 3.2 mm so that the intermediate portion of the
combined seal would have a high degree of strength with a width of 1.6 mm,
as such widths are conventional and predictable for a package seal. Id.
Appellant argues that Carnegie fails to disclose a conventional seal,
instead disclosing washing, baking, and drying a laminate. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner fails to analyze the Graham factors,
specifically the scope and content of Carnegie and whether it constitutes
analogous art. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in
rejecting claims 4–6.
Carnegie concerns an impulse heat-sealing machine for forming a
liquid leakproof seal joining flexible thermoplastic resin films. Carnegie,
Abstract. A heater element is at least one-sixteenth inch (equal to 1.6 mm)
in width to form the leakproof seal. Id., col. 2, ll. 46–48; see also id., col. 4,
ll. 49–52 (“The width of the heater elements is usually one-sixteenth to one-
eighth of an inch and they determine the width of the leakproof seal.”).
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

15
The Examiner’s findings regarding Carnegie describes adequately the
scope and content of Carnegie as relevant to the rejection. See Ans. 14.
Carnegie teaches that the heater width is 1.6 mm to 3.2 mm, as compared to
the claims requirement of a width of 1 to 5 mm, thus the disclosed range
overlaps the claimed range. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275 (CCPA 1980)
(where ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is made out); see
also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a prima facie case
of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition
overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (same). The Examiner explains that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that seal widths disclosed by Carnegie
are conventional and predictable for a package seal. Final Act. 6. Appellant
raised no issues in relation to secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Carnegie is not
analogous art. See Appeal Br. 11. “Whether a reference in the prior art is
‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. 1992).
The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock
Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To label a reference as
analogous art “merely connotes that it is relevant to a consideration of
obviousness under § 103 as ‘prior art.’” In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Our reviewing court explains that two criteria are relevant in
determining whether prior art is analogous:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

16
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Focusing on the first of the two tests above, we determine the appropriate
field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject
matter in the patent application. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. We thus
consider all explanations of the inventors’ subject matter while keeping in
mind that prior art is analogous when it “is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed. . . .” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–
26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “field of endeavor” should not be defined
narrowly based only upon the specific problem addressed.
According to the Specification, the inventive concept relates to a
method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible type. Spec., 1, ll. 4–6.
“A package of collapsible type typically comprises a filling chamber in
which a product, such as a liquid, may be contained.” Id., 1, ll. 9–10. The
package is sealed subsequent to filling so that the product cannot escape
from the filling chamber. Id., 1, ll. 12–13. The sealing may be performed
by placing the package between engagement surfaces of a pair of heated
jaws, pressing the sheets together to provide a seam. Id., 1, ll. 13–20. Based
on this disclosure, Carnegie is in the same field of endeavor.
But, if Carnegie were not in the same field of endeavor, it would be
reasonably pertinent—and thus analogous art—if it logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem
because of the matter with which it deals. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Klein, 647
Appeal 2020-004503
Application 15/556,823

17
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (same standard). An ordinarily skilled
artisan seeking to heat-seal two films would logically have considered
Carnegie.
The Examiner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
4–6 are obvious over the combination of Hesser, Yoshikawa, and Carnegie.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 is sustained.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 8 103 Hesser, Yoshikawa 1–3, 7, 8
4–6 103 Hesser, Yoshikawa,
Carnegie
4–6
Overall
Outcome
1–8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED