11045834 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Schneider

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11045834 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 11/045,834 01/28/2005 John H. Schneider 121981-000194 4261 51468 7590 11/30/2012 McCarter & English LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. 245 Park Avenue NEW YORK, NY 10167 EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3782 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2012 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 JOHN H. SCHNEIDER ____________ Appeal 2010-010854 Application 11/045,834 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and TIMOTHY J. O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HEARN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving an easy open slider package. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-27 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-010854 Application 11/045,834 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a plastic bag having a slidable zipper with flanges in which, near the ends of the zipper, the flanges are cut back. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed language in italics. 1. A reclosable bag comprising: a front panel and a rear panel; first and second side seals joining said front panel to said rear panel; a reclosable zipper including a first interlocking profile, a second interlocking profile and a slider; said first interlocking profile including a first flange which is sealed to said front panel along a first flange seal; said second interlocking profile including a second flange which is sealed to said rear panel along a second flange seal; said first flange and said second flange including portions with a width less than a width of said reclosable zipper; and wherein said first flange and said second flange are substantially free of being sealed within said first and second side seals; a first region wherein the first flange seal is joined to the second flange seal extending from the first side seal to a first end of the first and second flanges; and a second region wherein the first flange seal is joined to the second flange seal extending from the second side seal to a second end of the first and second flanges. Appeal 2010-010854 Application 11/045,834 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaki (JP 2002-302132 A, publ. Oct. 15, 2002) and Machacek (US 6,783,276 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2004). Claims 9, 10 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaki and Machacek et al. as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-18 above, and further in view of Buchman, (US 6,273,607 B1, iss. Aug. 14, 2001). ISSUE Did the Examiner articulate adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to support the determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art references in a manner that would arrive at the claimed invention? ANALYSIS Appellant's Specification discloses a reclosable bag with a zipper and a slider. Figs. 1-3. The zipper includes first and second interlocking profiles, each of which has a "flange." Spec. 3. The flanges are cut back at their ends in the region extending away from the interlocking profiles so that those portions of the flange are not sealed within the side seals of the reclosable bag. Id., Figs. 1-3. The claim language highlighted above in italics is directed to that feature. Ishizaki discloses a plastic bag with a nozzle-like pouch fused within the plastic bag. Figs. 1-3. The pouch is composed of plastic film fused to an Appeal 2010-010854 Application 11/045,834 4 extrusion molded zipper. Ishizaki para. [0013].1 The zipper includes "base parts 31" which extends continuously to the edge of the pouch without any portion being cut back at the ends. See figs. 1-5. The plastic film 22, which forms the outer layer of the pouch, narrows in the region just below the “base portion” of the zipper. The Examiner found that this narrowing feature meets the language of Appellant’s claims italicized above. Ans. 6. Appellant argues that Ishizaki does not disclose the disputed language of the claims because the pouch walls 22, which are cited by the Examiner for the narrowing feature, are a plastic film, not a “flange.” App. Br. 7-8. Appellant argues that the "base parts 31" is the feature of Ishizaki that constitutes a “flange,” not the outer film to which it is attached. Id.. Since Ishizaki's "base parts 31" does not include “portions with a width less than a width of said reclosable zipper,” Appellant argues, the rejection is improper. The Specification clearly describes the layer which makes up the bag distinctly from the portions called out as a "flange." For example, the Specification describes the reclosable bag 10 as having front and rear panels "which are made from film or web." Spec. 2. Separately, it describes the zipper with interlocking profiles that "include a respective first and second flanges 36, 38". Spec. 3. Similarly, Ishizaki describes the outer layer of its pouch as "two heat fusible plastic films." Ishizaki para. [0013]. It separately describes a zipper formed by extrusion molding with "base parts 31 and 31." Id. Accordingly, both the Appellant’s Specification and the cited prior art clearly distinguish between a "film" and a "flange." This is 1 References to Ishizaki are to an English language translation of the Japanese publication, document PTO 09-7218, dated August 2009, by The McElroy Translation Company. Appeal 2010-010854 Application 11/045,834 5 consistent with ordinary English language meaning of these terms. For these reasons, we do not find on this record an affirmable basis for the obviousness rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-18, and of claims 9, 10 and 19- 27. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the narrowed regions of the plastic film in Ishizaki corresponds to the claimed first and second flanges. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REVERSED Klh