Ex Parte Greco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13193030 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
121981-00362 7135
EXAMINER
HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/193,030 07/28/2011 Charles G. GRECO
09/29/201751468 7590
McCarter & English LLP
ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
825 Eighth Avenue
31st Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10019
09/29/2017 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 CHARLES G. GRECO, DAVID J. ANZINI, LARS WIHLBORG,
and RUSTY KOENIGKRAMER
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles G. Greco et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 and 21—23.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Illinois Tool Works Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 18—20 have been withdrawn.
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for manufacturing reclosable packages,
including the steps of:
providing a web moving in a machine direction;
sealing a zipper across the web in a transverse direction;
folding the web and zipper, joining edge sections of the
web in a fin seal thereby forming the zipper into a substantially
circular loop with end sections of the zipper being brought
together so as to abut each other, the end sections being free of
interlocking engagement; and
forming a lower seal in the web, thereby forming a bottom
seal in the package, the zipper being free of end stomps, thereby
maintaining the zipper in a loop, and maintaining a tendency of
the zipper to urge the reclosable package to an open
configuration.
Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1—8 and 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yeager (US 2009/0013644 Al, published Jan. 15, 2009)
and Forman.
Claims 9—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Forman and Ausnit (US 6,131,370, issued Oct. 17, 2000).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Forman, Ausnit, and Greco (US 2007/0258665 Al, published Nov. 8, 2007).
3 A rejection of claims 1 and 6—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Forman (US 6,519,917 B2, issued Feb. 18, 2003) has been withdrawn. Ans.
2; see Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of claims 1—8 and 21—23 over Yeager and Forman
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1—8 and 21—23 as a group.
Br. 7—8. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2—8
and 21—23 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “sealing a zipper across the web in a
transverse direction,” and “folding the web and zipper, joining edge sections
of the web in a fin seal thereby forming the zipper into a substantially
circular loop with end sections of the zipper being brought together so as to
abut each other.” Br. 10 (Claims App. (emphasis added)).
The Examiner finds that Yeager discloses a process for manufacturing
reclosable packages comprising sealing zipper 30 across web W in a
transverse direction, and folding web W, “forming zipper [30] into a loop”
with end sections of zipper 30 brought together in an abutting, but not
interlocking, relationship. Final Act. 3 (citing Yeager, col. 7,1. 26+, Figs. 9,
10). The Examiner finds that Yeager does not disclose that the zipper
extends around the entire circumference of the package, as claimed. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Forman discloses zipper element 31 extending
around the entire circumference of a package. Id. (citing Forman, Figs. 1,
4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Yeager to include a zipper that extends around the entire circumference of a
package, as taught by Forman, “to provide a wider mouth for the package
and greater accessibility.” Id.
Appellants contend that Yeager does not form the zipper in a “circular
configuration.” Br. 7. Rather, Appellants contend, Figure 5 of Yeager
illustrates a teardrop configuration, wherein “the ends of the zipper are not
3
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
brought together in an abutting or end-on-end configuration, but rather the
sides of the ends of the zipper are brought together.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants also contend that, in Yeager, “the zipper end sections are sealed
together in an interlocked position instead of abutting each other, resulting in
a teardrop shaped loop rather than a circular loop.” Id. Appellants contend
that neither Yeager nor Forman discloses a “circular loop.” Id.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites a
“substantially circular loop,” not a “circular loop.” We note that the
Specification describes a film having a “circular form.” See Spec. 134, Figs.
2, 4. The Specification also describes the zipper 20 or 20’ as being “formed
into a circle.” See id. 135. However, the Specification does not describe a
“substantially circular loop,” as claimed. This term does not require a
perfectly circular loop, but allows for deviations from circular. Consistent
with this understanding, we note that Appellants reference Figure 6 for
support for the claimed “folding” step. See Br. 3 (“see the loop shape
illustrated by Figure 6”). Figure 6 shows “a unisex zipper in combination
with a fin seal.” See Spec. 122. The structure shown clearly does not have
the shape of a perfectly “circular” loop. Appellants do not explain
persuasively why the shape of the fastener strip 30 shown in Figure 5 of
Yeager cannot be considered a “substantially circular shape,” as claimed.
Appellants’ contention that “the ends of the [Yeager] zipper are not
brought together in an abutting or end-on-end configuration, but rather the
sides of the ends of the zipper are brought together,” is not persuasive. Br.
7. Claim 1 calls for “forming the zipper into a substantially circular loop
with end sections of the zipper being brought together so as to abut each
other.'1'’ Appellants do not explain persuasively why the “sections” of
4
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
Yeager’s fastener strip 30, shown to abut each other in Figure 5, cannot be
considered “end sections” of fastener strip 30. Further, Appellants do not
direct us to any description in Yeager that supports the contention that, in
Yeager, “the zipper end sections are sealed together in an interlocked
position instead of abutting each other.'1'’ See id. (emphasis added).
We note that the Examiner’s findings with regard to Forman are not
required to meet any limitation in claim 1. Final Act. 4. That is, the
Examiner’s findings pertain to a limitation recited in dependent claim 6,
which Appellants do not argue separately.
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Forman discloses a
“circular loop” with regard to the withdrawn rejection. Br. 6—7 (citing Final
Act. 12). However, claim 1 does not recite a “circular loop.” Further, we
are not persuaded by Appellants that Yeager fails to teach the claimed
“substantially circular loop,” and, thus, Forman need not be relied on to also
teach this same limitation.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Yeager and Forman. Claims 2—8 and 21—23 fall with claim 1.
Obviousness of claims 9—16 over Forman andAusnit
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 9-16 as a group. Br. 8.
We select claim 9 as representative of this group, and claims 10-16 stand or
fall with claim 9.
Claim 9 recites a method for manufacturing reclosable packages,
including, inter alia, the step of “sealing a zipper across the web in a
transverse direction, wherein the zipper includes an interlocking element, a
first flange and a peel seal on the flange.” Br. 11 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Forman does not disclose a “flanged zipper portion” or a
5
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
peel seal. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Ausnit discloses the
transverse application of “multi alignment zipper material 206 (flanged) with
peel seal 208.” Id. (citing Ausnit, col. 5,1. 37+, Figs. 14, 15). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Forman “to include
flanged interlocking profiles . . . and a peel seal as taught by Ausnit. . . [in]
order to provide sealing locations for the web material and hermetic seal.”
Id.
Appellants contend that Ausnit does not cure the deficiencies of
Forman with respect to claim 9. Br. 8. However, Appellants do not identify
any deficiency of Forman in regard to this ground of rejection, which is
based on the combined teachings of Forman and Ausnit. Id. As stated in 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), an appeal brief shall contain:
The arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of
rejection, and the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes,
regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record relied on. The
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each
ground of rejection contested by appellant.
(Emphasis added).
We note that Appellants discuss Forman for the withdrawn rejection.
See Br. 6—7. For that rejection, Appellants contend that Forman discloses
thermoformable material 31 is laminated to packaging material 32, and
downstream in the process, reclosable seal 36 is formed, apparently
including thermoformable material 31, at element 50. Br. 6 (citing Forman,
col. 4, 64—col. 5,1. 11, Figs. 14, 15). Appellants contend the claimed step of
“sealing a zipper” is different from sealing strips of thermoformable
material. Id. Appellants also dispute the Examiner’s finding that Forman
discloses a “circular loop.” Id. at 6—7 (citing Final Act. para. 2).
6
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
Even assuming it is Appellants’ position that these contentions made
with respect to the withdrawn rejection also pertain to the rejection of claim
9, which Appellants fail to clearly indicate is their position, the contentions
still do not address the Examiner’s rejection. That is, the rejection relies on
teachings of Ausnit regarding a zipper, which the Examiner proposes to
combine with the teachings of Forman. Appellants do not apprise us of any
error in the Examiner’s findings with regard to Ausnit, or the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Ausnit’s teachings with Forman.
Further, the Examiner responds in the Examiner’s Answer.
Particularly, the Examiner states that Forman teaches abutting ends of zipper
material in the claimed configuration. Ans. 6. The Examiner also
determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to seal a zipper
in the claimed configuration to provide a wide opening for increased access
into the package. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that Forman discloses strips
31 aligned in an end to end abutting relationship, as claimed. Id. at 8. The
Examiner also finds that Forman discloses that opposed ends of strip 31 are
“substantially abutting” as shown in Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10. Id.', see
Forman, col. 6,11. 11—16. Appellants do not reply to, and thus do not
apprise us of any error in, the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Regarding the claimed “substantially circular loop,” the Examiner
explains how Forman’s bag will be “in a substantially circular loop.” Ans.
8—9. Appellants also do not reply to these findings and reasoning.
Accordingly, Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning in support of the rejection of claim 9.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Forman and
Ausnit. Claims 10—16 fall with claim 9.
7
Appeal 2016-008492
Application 13/193,030
Obviousness of claim 17 over Forman, Ausnit, and Greco
Claim 17 depends from claim 9. Appellants do not provide any
substantial argument for claim 17. Br. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Forman, Ausnit, and Greco.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—17 and 21—23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8