Appeal No. 96-1211
Application 08/173,083
7(b) (“The [Board] shall . . . review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for
patents . . .”). Here, the examiner has not presented a position in regard to the
patentability of claim 17 and the claims which depend therefrom which is amenable to a
meaningful review. As a consequence, the rejection of claims 17, 21, and 24 is reversed.
5. Group 5
Claim 25 is representative of this group and requires that the labels are provided
with exposed adhesive over the entire second face. Appellant argues that the teachings of
Lane are contrary to what is recited in claim 25. Bane, not Lane, is relied upon to establish
the obviousness of this portion of the claimed subject matter. Note that Bane teaches that
the second face opposite of the face with the indicia is covered with an adhesive, albeit,
two different adhesives (18) and (20). Claim 25 is not limited in a manner which requires
that the adhesive which is to cover the second face is of a single type.
The rejection of claims 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33 is affirmed.
6. Group 6
Claim 30 requires that step b) is practiced to provide a plurality of label stock ties
connecting each label to surrounding matrix material of the web or another label as in claim
17. For the reasons set forth above in regard to claim 17, the rejection of claims 30 and
31 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007