Ex Parte Schneider et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2009

10903453 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN H. SCHNEIDER, STEVEN AUSNIT,
GREGORY H. CRUNKLETON,
BASIL C. LINTON and ERIC J. FENZL
____________

Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided:1 February 17, 2009
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and,
MICHAEL W. O'NEILL Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John Schneider, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16-18, 22, 23, and 26.
Claims 2, 4-8, 12, 14, 15, 19-21, and 24 have been withdrawn, and claims 25
and 27-32 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is a method of manufacture of
slider-operated string-zippered bags on a vertical form-fill-seal machine
(Spec. 1:3-4). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of manufacture comprising the
following steps:

(a) guiding a web material in a machine
direction through a vertical form-fill-seal (VFFS)
machine with a portion or portions of said web
material being wrapped around a tube;

(b) joining respective backs of first and
second flangeless zipper strips to first and second
portions of said web material that do not form part
of said portion or portions of said web material
that are wrapped around a fill tube of said VFFS
machine;

(c) inserting a slider having first and second
sidewalls on said first and second flangeless zipper
strips joined to said web material, whereby said
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

3
first portion of said web material passes between
said back of said first flangeless zipper strip and
said first sidewall of said slider and said second
portion of said web material passes between said
back of said second flangeless zipper strip and said
second sidewall of said slider;

(d) cross sealing said web material at a
location downstream from said fill tube; and

(e) dropping product through said fill tube
and onto the most recently formed cross seal.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
McMahon US 6,178,722 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Bois (Bois ‘844) US 6,305,844 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Bois (Bois ‘576) US 2004/0014576 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Linton US 2004/0161173 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Bois ‘844.2
2. In the alternative, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13,
16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bois ‘844 and McMahon.

2 The heading of the rejection refers to “35 U.S.C. 102(b)/103(a)”; however
the Examiner’s discussion of the rejection makes it clear this is a rejection
under § 102(b), and the Appellants responded as such. Answer 3-6; App.
Br. 6-7.

Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

4
3. As another alternative, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 9-11,
13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bois ‘576 and Bois ‘844.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bois ‘844, McMahon, and Linton.

ISSUES
The Examiner found that Bois ‘844 anticipates claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13,
16, 18, 22, 23, and 26. Answer 3-6. Appellants contend that Bois ‘844 does
not expressly or inherently disclose either use of a Vertical Form-Fill-Seal
(VFFS) machine or advancing or guiding a web such that it partly encircles
or is otherwise wrapped around a tube. App. Br. 6-11.
The first issue before us is:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 because Bois’844 does not
expressly or inherently disclose either use of a Vertical Form-Fill-Seal
(VFFS) machine or advancing or guiding a web such that it partly encircles
or is otherwise wrapped around a tube?
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 as
unpatentable over Bois ‘844 and McMahon. Answer 6-7. Appellants
contend: 1) the rejection is based on the language of claim 26 and does not
address all the elements of claim 1; 2) the prior art does not teach the step of
joining the back of flangeless zipper strips to portions of a web material
having other portions wrapped around a fill tube; or 3) McMahon teaches
away from the proposed combination because McMahon discloses attaching
the sliders to the zipper strips before the zipper strips are attached to the web
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

5
material, and that this method of attachment of the sliders is not possible
with a flangeless zipper strip. App. Br. 11-13.
The second issue before us is:
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in (1) articulating the
Examiner’s analysis in terms of the limitations of dependent claim 26 in lieu
of separately discussing the limitations of claims 1 and 26, (2) determining
that the prior art teaches the step of joining the back of flangeless zipper
strips to portions of a web material having other portions wrapped around a
fill tube; or (3) determining that the teaching of McMahon is properly
combinable with Bois ‘844?
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 as
unpatentable over Bois ‘576 and Bois ‘844. Answer 8-9. Appellants
contend Bois ‘576 teaches away from the suggested combination because
Bois ‘576 discloses the sliders are pre-applied to the zipper strips and then
the zipper strips are attached to the web material contrary to what the claim
requires. App. Br. 13-14.
The third issue before us is:
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in determining that the
combination of Bois ‘844 and Bois ‘576 would have led one having ordinary
skill in the art to the claimed method in which the sliders are applied to the
zipper strips after the zipper strips have been attached to the web material?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated facts are supported by at least
a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422,
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

6
1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Bois ‘844 discloses a bag with complimentary closure strips.
Bois ‘844, col. 1, ll. 5-7.
2. Bois ‘844 does not expressly disclose use of a Vertical Form-
Fill-Seal (VFFS) machine, or advancing or guiding a web such that it
partly encircles or is otherwise wrapped around a tube. Bois ‘844,
passim.
3. While Bois ‘844 discloses the following: “Bags of the present
invention can be made on any suitable known type of machine, and in
particular on form, fill, and seal (FFS) type machines, i.e. machines
that are designed to perform automatically the operations of forming,
filling, and sealing the bags” (Bois ‘844, col. 8, ll. 37-41), this
disclosure does not necessitate use of a VFFS machine or a process
including advancing or guiding a web such that it partly encircles or is
otherwise wrapped around a tube.
4. Bois ‘844 discloses a bag where the slider (cursor 50) may be
attached to zipper strips (complementary closure strips 20, 22, each
attached to support web 21 and 23, respectively) before the zipper
strips are attached to the bag walls (sheets 16, 18), or alternatively, the
slider (cursor 50) may be attached after the zipper strips are attached
to the bag walls (sheets 16, 18). Bois ‘844, col. 3, ll. 33-36 & ll. 47-
56; col. 8, ll. 47-51; Fig. 7 (parentheticals to Bois ‘844 nomenclature).
5. Bois ‘844 discloses zipper strips (closure strips 20, 22) that
have substantially no flanges, and are attached to the bag walls (sheets
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

7
16, 18) at the back of each zipper strip (support webs 21, 23). These
zipper strips may be used on all the embodiments of the invention.
Bois ‘844, col. 3, ll. 33-53; Figures 7, 13, 14, 16 (parentheticals to
Bois ‘844 nomenclature).
6. Appellants’ arguments against rejection 1 (anticipation by Bois
‘844) do not include an argument that Bois ‘844 fails to disclose
attaching the slider after the zipper strip has been attached to the web
material, and Appellants have thereby waived any challenge to the
Examiner’s finding that Bois ‘844 discloses inserting a slider onto the
zipper/web assembly. Answer 5 (citing to Bois ‘844, col. 8, ll. 47-
51); App. Br., passim; Reply Br., passim.
7. McMahon discloses a method and apparatus for making slide-
zippered reclosable bags on FFS machines. McMahon, col. 1, ll. 13-
16.
8. McMahon discloses an embodiment where the slider (slider 54)
is attached to the zipper (zipper 10) before the zipper is attached to the
web (film 102), and another embodiment where the slider is attached
to the zipper after the zipper is attached to the web. McMahon, col. 5,
ll. 57-61; col. 6, ll. 13-16 & ll. 31-34 (parentheticals to the
nomenclature of McMahon).
9. Bois ‘576 discloses a method of automatically forming bags
where a zipper strip (closure assembly 10) with a pre-attached slider
(slide 50) is attached to the web (film 110) that becomes the bag.
Bois ‘576, paras. 52-62; Figs. 2, 3 (parentheticals to Bois ‘576
nomenclature).
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

8
10. Bois ‘576 only discloses embodiments with the slider (slide 50)
pre-attached to the zipper strips (closure assembly 10), and does not
disclose attaching the slider after the zipper strip has been attached to
the web (film 110). Bois ‘576, passim (parentheticals to Bois ‘576
nomenclature.
11. Bois ‘576 does not disclose or suggest that slider (slide 50)
could not be attached, or would be difficult to attach to the zipper
strips (closure assembly 10) after the zipper strips are attached to the
web (film 110). Bois ‘576, passim (parentheticals to Bois ‘576
nomenclature).
12. Claim 17 was rejected under a separate ground of rejection in
both the Final Rejection of October 31, 2006 and the Examiner’s
Answer as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bois
‘844, McMahon, and Linton. Final Rejection 6; Answer 7.3
13. Appellants acknowledged claim 17 was rejected. App. Br. 2
(Status of Claims).
14. While Appellants list claim 17 as being appealed,4 neither
Appellants’ Brief, nor Reply contains a separate heading or any

3 The heading of the rejection in the final Rejection of October 31, 2006,
cited “35 U.S.C. 102(b)/103(a)”; however the text of the rejection makes
it clear this is a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. Further, the Advisory Action of
January 24, 2007 corrected the rejection of claim 17 to cite only 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
4 App. Br. 2, Status of Claims. The Appellants’ Status of Claims was
acknowledged as correct by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

9
arguments regarding the rejection of claim 17.5 App. Br., passim;
Reply Br., passim.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Teaching Away
Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a
question of fact. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2001). “When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of
development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said
to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
S.L.¸437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appellants’ Burden
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

5 Note, in particular, the Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
section does not list claim 17. App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

10
ANALYSIS
1. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Bois ‘844
Claim 1 requires the process to be performed on a Vertical Form-Fill-
Seal (VFFS) machine. Bois ‘844 does not expressly disclose use of a VFFS
(Facts 1-2). Bois discloses generally that “[b]ags of the present invention
can be made on any suitable known type of machine, and in particular on
form, fill, and seal (FFS) machines, i.e. machines that are designed to
perform automatically the operations of forming, filling, and sealing the
bags” (Fact 3). The Examiner found this disclosure includes use of a VFFS
machine. Answer 3, 11-12.
Thus, Bois ‘844 broadly discloses that its method could be performed
on any suitable known type of FFS machine, but it fails to explicitly identify
a VFFS machine. The disclosure in Bois ‘844 falls short of showing that a
VFFS necessarily must be used with the process (Fact 3). As such, Bois
‘844 does not inherently disclose performing its process on a VFFS
machine. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (requiring for inherent anticipation that the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations). We
conclude that because Bois ‘844 does not expressly or inherently disclose
use of a VFFS for the process, Bois ‘844 does not anticipate claim 1.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). The rejection of dependent claims 3 and 9-11 likewise cannot stand.

Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

11
Claims 13, 22, and 26
Independent claims 13, 22, and 26 do not include the requirement of
performing the process on a VFFS machine, but do include the requirement
of “intermittently advancing a web along a pathway that partly encircles a
tube” (claim 13), “guiding a length of web material … such that a major
portion of said length of web material is wrapped around a tube” (claim 22),
and “guiding a length of web material … such that: (1) first and second
portions of said length of web material are wrapped around respective
portions of a tube” (claim 26). Appellants contend that Bois ‘844 does not
explicitly or inherently disclose such use of a tube.
Bois ‘844 does not explicitly disclose such use of a tube (Fact 2).
Nothing in Bois ‘844 points to the conclusion the process must necessarily
be accomplished by advancing or guiding a web such that it partly encircles
or is otherwise wrapped around a tube (Fact 3), and consequently this
characteristic is not inherent in the disclosure of Bois ‘844. We conclude
that because Bois ‘844 does not expressly or inherently disclose use of a
tube as claimed, Bois ‘844 does not anticipate claims 13, 22, and 26.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). The rejection of dependent claims 16, 18, and 23 likewise cannot
stand.
2. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bois ‘844 and McMahon
The Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 as a
group (App. Br. 11-13). As such, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim, and the remaining rejected claims stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

12
The Examiner found that Bois ‘844 discloses the claimed invention
except three aspects of using a VFFS machine, and that these aspects are
taught by McMahon. Answer 6-7.
Appellants first argue that because the rejection is recited using the
language of claim 26, the Examiner has not properly applied the art against
claim 1. App. Br. 11. While the rejection was recited in the format of claim
26, that alone does not prove error in the rejection. It is Appellants’ burden
to prove error in the rejection. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). There is no requirement that the rejection be in the language or
format of each claim rejected; rather the proper test relates to the substance
of the rejection, not the format. Cf. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (“The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is
not an ipsissimis verbis test”). This argument fails to demonstrate error by
the Examiner, and Appellants must point to the particular substance of the
rejection alleged to be insufficient.
Second, Appellants contend that step b) of the claim is not taught,
namely: that the backs of flangeless zipper strips are joined to portions of a
web material having other portions wrapped around a fill tube. App. Br. 11-
12. More specifically, Appellants assert: one, that Bois ‘844 does not
expressly mention fill tubes or use of a VFFS machine, and two, that while
McMahon otherwise discloses this step, McMahon discloses a flanged
zipper strip rather than the flangeless zipper strip required by the claim. Id.
Appellants’ assertion that Bois ‘844 does not disclose a fill tube or use
of a VFFS is irrelevant because the rejection states that McMahon teaches
these aspects. Appellants’ assertion that McMahon discloses a flanged
zipper is also irrelevant because the rejection states that Bois ‘844 teaches a
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

13
flangeless zipper.6 Appellants’ arguments are individual attacks on each
reference rather than a challenge to the Examiner’s combination of the
teachings of the two references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references).
Next, Appellants contend that McMahon inserts the slide before the
zipper strips are attached to the web material while the claim requires the
slider to be attached after the zipper strip has been attached to the web. App.
Br. 12-13. Further, Appellants maintain that because the claim requires the
web material to be between the back of each zipper strip and the sidewall of
the slider, a slider cannot be attached to the zipper strips prior to the zipper
strips being attached to the web material (as taught by McMahon); rather,
the slider can be attached only after the back of the zipper strip has been
attached to the web material. Id. Based on these assertions, Appellants
conclude that “McMahon teaches away from manufacturing slider-string
[flangeless] zipper bags on an FFS machine having a tube.” App. Br. 13.
To analyze this contention, we look to the claim, and then the prior art.
Appellants base their teaching away argument on the assertion that
Figure 5 of McMahon discloses “pre-application of sliders to zipper before
the zipper is attached to the web.” App. Br. 12. While this may be true of
the embodiment in Figure 5 of McMahon, McMahon also discloses
embodiments where the slider is attached after the zipper has been attached
to the web (Facts 7-8). Because McMahon discloses attachment of a slider

6 Bois ‘844 discloses a flangeless zipper (Fact 5).
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

14
to the zipper after the zipper has been attached to the web, the very thing
required by the claim, it would be more accurate to say McMahon teaches to
the claim, rather than away.
Appellants have failed to demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 fall with claim 1.

3. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bois ‘576 and Bois ‘844
The Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 as a
group (App. Br. 13-14). As such, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim, and claims 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as unpatentable over Bois ‘576 and
Bois ‘844. Answer 8-9. The rejection includes the finding that Bois ‘576
discloses “inserting a slider (50) on the zipper strips (10) joined to the web
material.” Answer 8. Appellants contend this is incorrect, that Bois ‘576
discloses the sliders are pre-applied to the zipper strips and then the zipper
strips are attached to the web material.7 App. Br. 13-14. Based on this
contention, Appellants argue Bois ‘576 teaches away from the combination
suggested by the Examiner because claim 1 requires the slider to be inserted
after the zipper strips have been attached to the web material. Id.
In fairness to Appellants, we consider the argument as two
contentions: one, that Bois ‘576 teaches away from the suggested

7 Appellants point to Figures 1 and 2 of Bois ‘576 to support this contention.
We note that Figure 1 of Bois is actually prior art, not one of Bois’s
embodiments.
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

15
combination, and two, that the references fail to teach attaching the slide
after the zipper strip has been attached to the web material.
First, Bois ‘576 does not teach away from the suggested combination.
Bois ‘576 does not disclose or suggest that the slide may not be attached to
the zipper strip after the zipper strip has been attached to the web material;
rather, Bois ‘576 is silent on this issue (Facts 9-11). Given the absence of a
suggestion that the slide may not be attached, or would be difficult to attach,
to the zipper strip after the zipper strip is attached to the web material (the
approach taken by Appellants), Bois ‘576 does not teach away from that
step. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“When a piece of
prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s
disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant,
the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.”)).
Second, the prior art teaches this aspect of the claim. Appellants
contend that Bois ‘576 does not disclose attaching the slide to the zipper
strip after the zipper strip has been attached to the web material as the claim
requires. We concur with this contention; however, Bois ‘844 teaches that
the slide may be attached to the zipper strip after the zipper strip has been
attached to the web material (Fact 4). We conclude it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Bois
‘844 that the slide may be inserted after the zipper strip has been attached to
the web in conjunction with the remainder of the rejection as recited by the
Examiner in order to provide a reclosable bag that is leakproof and enables a
high production throughput by automated means. This rationale for
combining was only attacked by Appellants based on the “teaching away”
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

16
argument we found unconvincing in the analysis of this rejection supra.
Appellants made no further attacks on the Examiner’s reason to combine.
Further, using this teaching of Bois ‘844 permits the zipper strips to be
attached to the web without interference from the slider.
We conclude Appellants had a fair opportunity to respond to the thrust
of this rejection. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-1303 (CCPA 1976).
First, the modified rejection is under the same statutory section (35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)) and over the same prior art (Bois ‘844 and Bois ‘576). Second,
Appellants had an opportunity to argue against anticipation by Bois ‘844 in
their arguments responding to rejection 1, and Appellants did not contend
that Bois ‘844 fails to disclose adding the slide after the zipper strips have
been attached to the web (Fact 6).
Bois ‘576 does not teach away from the suggested combination, and
Bois ‘844 discloses the aspect of the claim requiring the slide to be attached
after the zipper strips have been attached to the web material. Appellants
have failed to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 fall with claim 1.

4. Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Bois ‘844, McMahon, and Linton
Claim 17 was rejected as unpatentable over Bois ‘844, McMahon, and
Linton (Fact 12). Appellants acknowledged this rejection in their Appeal
Brief (Fact 13). Appellants purport to appeal this rejection, but have not
argued this ground of rejection under separate heading, nor provided any
argument at all to specifically identify an error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17 (Fact 14).
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

17
While claim 17 depends from claim 16, which in turn depends from
independent claim 13, and Appellants have provided arguments related to
claim 13, those arguments are related to other grounds of rejection (i.e.
rejections 1-3). Appellants have presented no argument rebutting the ground
of rejection of claim 17 (Fact 14).
It is Appellants’ burden to prove error in the Examiner’s rejection. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Having presented no
argument against this ground of rejection, Appellants have failed to carry
that burden. As such, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 17.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims
1, 3, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, and 26 as anticipated by Bois ‘844 because
Bois ‘844 does not expressly or inherently disclose use of a Vertical Form-
Fill-Seal (VFFS) machine or advancing or guiding a web such that it partly
encircles or is otherwise wrapped around a tube.
Appellants have failed to show the Examiner erred in (1) articulating
the Examiner’s analysis in terms of the limitations of dependent claim 26 in
lieu of separately discussing the limitations of claims 1 and 26, (2)
determining that Bois ‘844 in combination with McMahon teaches the step
of joining the back of flangeless zipper strips to portions of a web material
having other portions wrapped around a fill tube; or (3) determining that the
teaching of McMahon is properly combinable with Bois ‘844.
Appellants failed to show the Examiner erred in determining that the
combination of Bois ‘844 and Bois ‘576 would have led one having ordinary
Appeal 2008-3776
Application 10/903,453

18
skill in the art to the claimed method in which the sliders are applied to the
zipper strips after the zipper strips have been attached to the web material.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13,
16-18, 22, 23, and 26.
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) (2008).

AFFIRMED

vsh

DENNIS M. FLAHERTY, ESQ.
OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN P.C.
570 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK NY 10022-6894