Ex Parte Pannekeet

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2007

10681826 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PETRUS CLEMENS MARIA PANNEKEET
____________________

Appeal 2006-3317
Application 10/681,826
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: September 12, 2007
____________________

Before: TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD and
JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1 to 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2007-3317
Application 10/681,826

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a method for manufacturing a
bag package from tube-shaped or strip-shaped netting material, wherein the
netting material of the bag to be formed is connected with at least two foil
strips which are each provided with a longitudinally repeating printing.”
(Specification 1).
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. Method for manufacturing bag packages, wherein netting
material of bags to be formed is connected to at least two foil
strips which are each provided with a printing pattern repeating
in a longitudinal direction of the foil strip, characterized in that
the foil strips are supplied in a coupled manner from one foil
stock.

The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pannekeet in view of Kurth.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pannekeet in view of Kurth and Antonacci.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Antonacci US 5,823,683 Oct. 20, 1998

Kurth US 6,658,818 B2 Dec. 09, 2003
(filed Feb. 02, 2002)
Pannekeet WO 99/14121 Mar. 25, 1999
In both rejections, the Examiner relies on Pannekeet for teaching the
invention as claimed except that Pannekeet does not disclose that foil strips
are supplied in a coupled manner from one foil stock. The Examiner relies
on Kurth for teaching that an endless stock material web divided into a
2
Appeal 2007-3317
Application 10/681,826

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
plurality of individual webs of equal width provides means to economically
manufacture the tubular bag. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention, to have modified the Pannekeet method by incorporating the step
of slitting a web sheet of packing material into a plurality of strips of equal
width for economically manufacturing tubular bags.

Appellant contends that Kurth relates to web stock utilized to form
tubular bags not foil strips which are connected to netting material which
forms bags. Appellant further argues that Kurth teaches nothing about foil
strip overlays for netting bags.
ISSUES
Whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
it would have been obvious to modify the method disclosed by Pannekeet
such that the method for manufacturing bag packages includes the step of
supplying at least two foil strips in a coupled manner from one foil stock.

3
Appeal 2007-3317
Application 10/681,826

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Specification teaches a method of manufacturing bags in
which a strip of foil 12A is placed on one side of a net bag and a strip of foil
12B is placed on the reverse side of the net bag (Figure 5). Each of the foil
strips includes at least two repeating printing patterns thereon. The method
includes the step of providing the two strips of foil 12A and 12B coupled
together as one strip from a single foil supply 11 (Specification 6; Figure 5).
The strips 12A and 12B are cut into separate strips and then connected to the
front and back of a net bag (Figure 4). The Appellant’s Specification teaches
that supplying the foil strips in a coupled manner and then cutting the single
strip to form strips 12A and 12B eliminates front and back pattern mismatch
(Specification 3). This is so because slight variations in the length of one
strip as compared to the other strip is eliminated.
Pannekeet discloses a method of manufacturing bags which includes
the step of providing two separate strips of foil 12, 16, suitable for printing,
from two different foil supplies 11, 15 which are to be connected to a net
bag as depicted in Figure 3).
Kurth discloses a method of manufacturing tubular bags in which a
sheet of packing material is withdrawn from a supply reel VR and slit into a
plurality of strips of equal width (col. 1, ll 18 to 22; col.4, ll 44 to 47, ll 60 to
65). The strips are utilized to form tubular bags (col. 1, ll 18 to 25). Kurth
discloses nothing about providing two strips of material each including
repeating printing patterns in a longitudinal direction or about supplying
such two strips of material in a coupled manner from a single supply reel.
Kurth discloses nothing about foil strips connected to net bags.
4
Appeal 2007-3317
Application 10/681,826

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DISCUSSION
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection because there is no
teaching in the prior art of a method of connecting foil strips to a net bag
including the step of supplying the foil strips in a coupled manner from one
foil stock. Pannekeet clearly teaches that the foil strips, which are connected
to net bags, are supplied from two separate reels 11 and 15.
Kurth relates to the formation of net bags themselves from a plurality
of strips and does not relate to foil strips. Kurth does not disclose supplying
at least two strips of material with repeating printing patterns in a
longitudinal direction thereon as one strip from a supply reel. As such,
Kurth does not disclose supplying two strips of material of any kind in a
coupled manner as required by the claims.
Antonacci does not cure the deficiencies of Pannekeet and Kurth.
There is simply no teaching in the prior art of a method of manufacturing
bags wherein the netting material which forms the bags is connected to at
least two foil strips which are supplied in a coupled manner from one foil
stock.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
REVERSED

vsh

5
Appeal 2007-3317
Application 10/681,826

1
2
3
SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C.
8210 SOUTHPARK TERRACE
LITTLETON CO 80120
6