Ex Parte Caplan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2013

12290596 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2013)

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.
12/290,596 10/30/2008 Adam N. Caplan 121981-00269 7198
51468 7590 10/09/2013
McCarter & English LLP
ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
245 Park Avenue
NEW YORK, NY 10167
EXAMINER
PARADISO, JOHN ROGER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2013 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 ADAM N. CAPLAN and DAVID C. WALLACE
____________________

Appeal 2011-012420
Application 12/290,596
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012420
Application 12/290,596

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Howell (US 7,172,545 B2; iss. Feb. 6, 2007) and
Thieman (US 5,956,924; iss. Sep. 28, 1999). Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12-14, 19,
and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A process of manufacturing at least a portion of a
reclosable package including the steps of:
providing a length of zipper material by a spool;
providing a length of film;
providing a station for sealing the length of zipper
material to the length of film;
providing a station for inserting clips onto the length of
zipper material downstream from the station for sealing,
whereby the length of zipper material is sealed to the length of
film prior to insertion of the clips;
scanning the film for an eye-mark;
upon detecting the eye-mark, momentarily stopping the
length of zipper material and the length of film and activating
the station for inserting clips onto the length of zipper material,
and momentarily resuming motion of the film after clips have
been inserted on the length of zipper material;
providing a first accumulator downstream of the station
for inserting clips wherein speed of the length of film and the
length of zipper from the first accumulator remains
substantially constant; and

Appeal 2011-012420
Application 12/290,596

3
providing a second accumulator downstream of the spool
whereby the spool can continue to provide the length of zipper
material during the step of momentarily stopping the length of
zipper material.

OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 15-18 as a group. See Br. 5-6.
We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 5-8, 11, and 15-18 stand or fall
with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Howell discloses each of the features from
claim 1 except the station for adding the slider (clip) being downstream from
the station for sealing the zipper material, and finds that Thieman discloses
this feature. Ans. 4, 5. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings
regarding Howell, the Examiner’s finding regarding Thieman disclosing a
station for adding the slider (clip) downstream from a station for sealing the
zipper material, or the Examiner’s explanation for the proposed
modifications to Howell. See Br. 5-6. Instead, Appellants only argue that
Thieman fails to disclose a number of features not relied on by the Examiner
in the rejection. These arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
references individually rather than the combination proposed by the
Examiner. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 15-18.

Appeal 2011-012420
Application 12/290,596

4
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5-8, 11, and
15-18.
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

hh