Ex Parte Anzini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2012

11147559 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

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.
11/147,559 06/08/2005 David J. Anzini 121981-00207 6853
51468 7590 12/03/2012
McCarter & English LLP
ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
245 Park Avenue
NEW YORK, NY 10167
EXAMINER
OMGBA, ESSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2012 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 DAVID J. ANZINI, STEVEN AUSNIT, LARS WIHLBORG,
PER BENTSEN, and ROBERT G. KOBETSKY
____________

Appeal 2010-011568
Application 11/147,559
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011568
Application 11/147,559

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-8, 12, and 13.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claims 1 and 5 are representative of the claimed subject
matter and are reproduced below.
1. A method including the steps of:
providing a zipper slider for a reclosable
package to be subjected to high pressure
pasteurization;
providing a cap of sufficient softness to
protect said zipper slider during high pressure
pasteurization; and
inserting said cap over said slider.

5. A method comprising the steps of:
providing a slider on a length of reclosable
zipper for a reclosable package to be subjected to
high pressure pasteurization;
providing a cap of sufficient softness to
protect said slider during high pressure
pasteurization; and
inserting said cap over said slider while said
slider is on said length of reclosable zipper.

1 Claims 9-11 were previously cancelled. See Amendment in Response to
Restriction Requirement (July 2, 2008) at 2.
Appeal 2010-011568
Application 11/147,559

3
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Richardson US 5,283,932 Feb. 8, 1994
Cappel US 6,286,999 B1 Sep. 11, 2001

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cappel or Richardson; and
II. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cappel or Richardson.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Rejection I – Cappel or Richardson
The Examiner found that Cappel and Richardson individually disclose
each element of claims 1 and 5. Ans. 3-4. Appellants’ sole contention is
that because of “the apparent lack of any discussion of high pressure
pasteurization in the cited references, . . . the anticipation rejection . . . is
improper and cannot stand.” App. Br. 6.
We disagree. While claims 1 and 5 recite language pertaining to
“high pressure pasteurization,” the methods claimed do not require a high
pressure pasteurization step. Thus, the references need not disclose a step of
high pressure pasteurization in order to anticipate the claimed methods.
Importantly, the Examiner found that the caps disclosed by Cappel and
Appeal 2010-011568
Application 11/147,559

4
Richardson were each capable of protecting the sliders during high pressure
pasteurization (Ans. 3-4), and Appellants did not make any attempt, by way
of evidence or argument, to rebut the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5-6).
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II – Cappel or Richardson
Appellants assert the same argument regarding Cappel and
Richardson that they raised in response to Rejection 1—“[i]n view of the
apparent lack of any discussion of high pressure pasteurization in the cited
references, . . . the obviousness rejection . . . [is] improper and cannot
stand.” App. Br. 7.
For the reasons we explained above with respect to Rejection I, we
likewise sustain Rejection II.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 12, and 13.
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

Klh