Ex parte LANGAN - Page 3




              Appeal No. 96-0031                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/078,918                                                                               


                     Encyclopedia Of Chemical Technology, Volume 16, "NOISE POLLUTION                                  
                     TO PERFUMES", published 1981 by John Wiley & Sons (NY), pp. 785-792.                              
                     Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a stack of cut sheet linerless labels                
              wherein each label comprises a substrate having opposing first and second faces.  A                      
              pressure sensitive adhesive substantially covers the first face of the substrate, while a                
              release coat substantially covers the second face of the substrate.                                      
                     Appealed claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                     
              being anticipated by Keeling.  Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12 stand rejected  under 35                    
              U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fickenscher.  Claims 1, 6-10, 13 and 14 stand                    
              rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Keeling, while claims 1, 4-6, 8-               
              10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                            
              Fickenscher.  In addition, claims 2, 3, and 11 stand rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being                
              unpatentable over either Keeling or Fickenscher in view of Encyclopedia Of Chemical                      
              Technology.                                                                                              
                     At the outset, we must formally reverse the examiner's rejections of claims 2-5 and               
              11-14 inasmuch as we find that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably                     
              ascertain the scope of these claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295                  
              (CCPA 1962).  In our view, claims 2-5 and 11-14 are indefinite since they do not                         





                                                          3                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007