RON LINNEWIEL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2020003982 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
14/870,071 09/30/2015 RON LINNEWIEL 1961-US1 4149
24505 7590 12/31/2020
Daniel J. Swirsky
11 Reuven Street
Beit Shemesh, 9954419
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
TAWFIK, SAMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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 RON LINNEWIEL
____________________

Appeal 2020-003982
Application 14/870,071
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Larsen (US 5,227,210, iss. July 13, 1993) and Stern (US
5,176,452, iss. Jan. 5, 1993). Claims 5 and 12–17 are withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies inventor Ron Linnewiel as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003982
Application 14/870,071

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “an adhesive clamp for
reclosing an opened packaging or bag.” Spec. 10. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is the sole independent claim and is representative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining an adhesive clamp mounted on a film, wherein
each adhesive clamp comprises:
a single tape having one side of said tape coated
with a single layer of adhesive material, and
a single strip of flat, foldable, non-elastic, material
attached to said single layer of adhesive material;
removing said adhesive clamp from said film by detaching
said single layer of adhesive material, attached to said single strip
of flat, foldable, non-elastic material, from said film; and
attaching said adhesive clamp to a bag by attaching said
single layer of adhesive material, attached to said single strip of
flat, foldable, non-elastic material, to said bag,
wherein said single, adhesive layer is attachable to said
foldable non-elastic material and to said tape and to said film and
to said bag.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims App.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Larsen discloses a method that includes the
step of obtaining an adhesive clamp mounted on a film. Final Act. 2.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Larsen’s sticker 20 corresponds to the
claimed adhesive clamp and carrier tape 10 corresponds to the claimed film.
Id. The Examiner also finds that Larsen discloses the claimed single tape
Appeal 2020-003982
Application 14/870,071

3
having one side coated with a single layer of adhesive material (i.e.,
adhesive layer 22).2
In addition, the Examiner finds that Larsen’s wires 26 and 28 are
strips of foldable, non-elastic material attached to the adhesive material. Id.
The Examiner, however, concedes that Larsen does not disclose using a
single strip of a flat, foldable, non-elastic material. Id. at 3. The Examiner
turns to Stern to address this deficiency of Larsen. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Stern discloses a single strip of a flat, foldable, non-
elastic material, specifically spring strip 41. Id. The Examiner then
concludes that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have substituted Larsen’s
use of two foldable, non-elastic materials, by using a single flat,
foldable, non-elastic material, as suggested by Stern, in order to
come up with stronger hold of the folded portion of the bag or
keep the bag at straightened shape as desired (column 1, lines
45–53).
Id. The Examiner also concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have appreciated replacing Larsen’s two wires 26, 28 with a single strip of a
non-elastic strip, as suggested by Stern, because such a replacement would
“simplify the process by reducing parts.” Ans. 6.
Appellant presents several arguments against the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 5–12. In particular, Appellant argues that “Stern’s spring strip
41, as its name suggests, is a spring, and therefore by definition is not a
‘foldable, non-elastic, material’. As a matter of fact, spring strip 41 is not

2 It is not clear which element of Larsen’s sticker 20 the Examiner correlates
to the claimed single tape, as the Examiner merely states “via single sticker
20” with respect to the tape. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-003982
Application 14/870,071

4
flat either, as demonstrated by Stern in Figs. 3, 4, and 5B.” Id. at 11; see
also id. at 6 (“Stern’s ‘spring strip’ is an elastic spring, and thus is not ‘non-
elastic’.”). We find this argument persuasive.
Stern discloses self-closing bag 11 having strip holder 25 in the form
of a channel extending along rear sidewall 15. Stern, 2:51–68, Fig. 1. Self-
rolling spring strip 41 is inserted in strip holder 25. Id. at 3:3–4, Fig. 1.
According to Stern, “the spring strip has a biasing such that when unrolled
and straightened, the spring strip maintains its straightened shape, but when
the strip is bent, initiation of coiling occurs and the spring strip self-rolls into
a coiled shape.” Id. at 1:49–53; see also id. at 3:15–18 (disclosing spring
strip 41 self-rolling when bent). Thus, once opened by a consumer, bag 11
can be reclosed by pushing the sidewalls together along the top edge and
slightly bending spring strip 41, causing the strip to begin to self-roll and
thereby cause the top edge of bag 11 to roll up. Id. at 3:53–60, Fig. 3.
Although spring strip 41 maintains its shape when straightened, the
fact that it self-rolls into a coiled shape upon being slightly bent, as opposed
to retaining the slightly bent shape, indicates that spring strip 41 is elastic
rather than foldable and non-elastic. Moreover, the Examiner merely
declares that spring strip 41 is non-elastic, without providing an adequate
explanation of how, or in what sense, spring strip 41 would be considered a
strip of a foldable, non-elastic material. Final Act. 3.
We also agree with Appellant that spring strip 41 is not flat as
required by claim 1. Stern discloses that spring strip 41 has opposing
concave and convex surfaces (Stern, 3:13–15), and Figures 5A and 5B
clearly depict spring strip 41 with a significant transverse curvature. The
concave/convex surfaces are provided to maintain spring strip 41 straight
Appeal 2020-003982
Application 14/870,071

5
when straightened. Id. at 3:15–16. Again, the Examiner does not
adequately explain how spring strip 41 would be considered “flat” in view of
Stern’s disclosure of concave/convex surfaces. Final Act. 3.
For the above reasons, we determine the Examiner’s obviousness
analysis is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–4 and
6–11 depending therefrom, as obvious over Larsen and Stern.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–11 103(a) Larsen, Stern 1–4, 6–11

REVERSED