Appeal No. 96-2625
Application 08/329,536
As indicated by the above discussion, the examiner
interprets VanErmen as teaching that the printing is protected
because it abuts against the substrate. VanErmen, however,
indicates that the printing is protected not because it abuts
against the substrate but, rather, because it is underneath
the label (col. 3, lines 28-29). The examiner has not
explained, and it is not apparent, why VanErmen would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to protect Heatwole’s
printing by placing it on the peelable layer rather than by
placing it, as VanErmen does (col. 1, lines 55-62), and as
Heatwole can do (col. 2, lines 35-36), on the article side of
the label.
Moreover, as discussed above, placing Heatwole’s printing
on the inner portion of the peelable layer would have the
disadvantage of preventing the label from being transferable
to a
second surface. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
apparent, why the applied references would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to place the printing on Heatwole’s
peelable layer and thereby forgo the benefit of being able to
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007