Ex Parte Plourde

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11429870 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/429,870 05/08/2006 Eric P. Plourde 121981-00217 3874
51468 7590 03/29/2013
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
03/29/2013 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 ERIC P. PLOURDE
____________________

Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an externally applied zipper for a reclosable
bag. Claim 1, as reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal,
and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A reclosable bag, including:
a first web panel;
a second web panel joined to said first web panel;
a zipper including a first profile and a second profile, said first
profile including a first interlocking element and said second profile
including a second interlocking element;
said first profile being joined to an exterior of said first web
panel with said first interlocking element facing said first web panel
and said second profile being joined to an exterior of said second web
panel with said second interlocking element facing said second web
panel; and
said first and second web panels including a removable portion
which extends to two side edges of the bag, wherein said removable
portion, prior to removal, separates said first interlocking element
from said second interlocking element and wherein, after said
removable portion has been removed, said first interlocking element
and said second interlocking element can interlock with each other
thereby reclosing said bag.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Olin US 6,206,571 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
3
Buchman US 6,527,444 B1 Mar. 4, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as
being anticipated by Buchman. Ans. 3.
Claims 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buchman in view of Olin. Ans. 4.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues claims 1-13 and 18-20 as a group. App. Br. 4. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-13 and 18-20 will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 1 encompasses a reclosable bag having first and second web
panels and a zipper. A removable portion extends to two side edges of the
bag, and the removable portion separates the first interlocking element of the
zipper from the second interlocking element prior to removal of the
removable portion.
The Examiner found that Buchman teaches a shield 50 that is an
integral extension of the first and second web panels (24’26’) and is part of
the bag. Ans. 3-4. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasoned since the
shield is part of the bag, the shield is considered to be part of the side edges
of the bag, and so the removable portion of the shield extends to the side
edges. Ans. 4.
Appellant challenged the Examiner’s findings, arguing that the
removable portion or “shield 50/funnel 51” taught by Buchman does not
Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
4
extend to the side edges of the bag. App. Br. 4. In particular, Appellant
contends the sides of Buchman’s bag are inwardly offset from the side edges
27, 28 of the package, which is structurally not the same as the claim
limitation requiring “first and second web panels including a removable
portion which extends to two side edges of the bag." Id. In support of this
position, Appellant refers to Figures 8 and 9 of Buchman to illustrate that the
removable portion does not extend to the side edges of the bag. Id
The Examiner responded by noting that Buchman discloses in Fig. 2
that the shield is removable along a tear line 64 extending from side edge to
side edge in a portion of the film 66. Ans. 5. The Examiner also referenced
Fig. 5 to illustrate an embodiment showing the “film (66´) is an integral
extension of the first and second web panels (24´, 26´) of the bag and
therefore, part of the bag and as such, [the edges of the film] are considered
to be part of the side edges of the bag and therefore the removable portion of
the shield extends to these edges.” Ans. 5, citing Buchman FIG. 5. As
pointed out by the Examiner, the shape of the first and second web panels is
not explicitly claimed, and so the offset side edges of the shield 50 below the
tear line 64 are considered an integral extension of the side edges (27, 28) of
the first and second web panel and broadly meet the claim recitation of
"first and second web panels including a removable portion which extends to
two side edges of the bag." Ans. 5-6.
Appellant’s argument regarding the inwardly offset portion of the side
edges 27, 28 of the bag does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that the inwardly offset side edges of the removable shield are an
extension of the side edge of the bag prior to removal of the removable
shield. The Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 as not limiting the
recitation of the first and second panels to be a particular shape, and not
Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
5
limiting the ‘side edges of the bag’ to be the side edges of those panels is
within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.1 There is no
structure in claim 1 defining the shape of the first web panel or second web
panel, other than each of the first and second web panels includes “a
removable portion which extends to two side edges of the bag.” It is
reasonable to interpret the “side edge of the bag” to include the side edge of
the removable portion or “shield 50/funnel 51” taught by Buchman prior to
removal of the removable portion .
As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 1-13 and 18-20.

Obviousness Rejection
Claims 14-17 depend indirectly from independent claim 1. Claims 14-
15 further recite that the first and second lines of weakness are formed
diagonally across a corner of the first and second web panels, and claim 16
recites that the zipper includes a slider.
The Examiner found that Buchman teaches a reclosable bag having a
slider stabilized in a location beyond the periphery of the first and second
web panels, but does not disclose the first and second lines of weakness
formed diagonally across a corner of the first and second web panels. Ans.
4. The Examiner used the teaching of Olin to show that it is known in the
art to orient a tear strip (20) diagonally across a corner of the first and
second web panels of a bag. Id. According to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to one of skill in the art to provide the first and second lines of
weakness taught by Buchman oriented diagonally across a corner of the web

1 During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
6
panels as suggested by Olin to form a pour spout above the zipper. Ans. 4.
The Examiner noted that Appellant did not address the Examiner’s finding
regarding the combined teachings of Olin and Buchman. Ans. 6.
With respect to claims 14-16, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant has not provided any argument which apprises us of error in the
rejection of claims 14-16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant separately argues the limitation found in claim 17, which
additionally recites that prior to removal of the removable portion, the slider
is stabilized in a location beyond the periphery of the first and second web
panels. Appellant asserts that Buchman does not disclose a package having
a shield/funnel 51 that extends to the edge of the package, allowing the
slider to be parked beyond the edges of the bag, although Appellant
acknowledge Olin discloses a diagonal tear strip. App. Br. 5. Appellant
contends that the combination of Buchman and Olin does not disclose or
suggest the combination of a “removable portion and the slider being parked
beyond the side edge of the package.” Id.
For the reasons stated supra with respect to the analysis of claim 1, we
are likewise not persuaded that the structure resulting from the combined
teachings would not have a slider stabilized in a location beyond the
periphery of the web panels.
The Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness are supported
by a preponderance of evidence and a rational underpinning. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2011-000713
Application 11/429,870
7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14-17 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) is affirmed.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED
tj