Appeal No. 1996-3198 Page 4
Application No. 08/371,642
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions and evidence furnished by the appellant
and the examiner. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner's
§ 103 rejections of claims 1, 8, and 9 are sustainable.
However, we will not affirm the examiner's § 103 rejections of
claims 2,
5-7, and 10-12. Our reasons for these determinations follow.
Initially, we note that appellant states "[a]ll of the
appealed claims are submitted to be patentable and each claim
is argued separately." ( Brief, page 4). Accordingly, we shall
treat the claims separately to the extent appellants have
argued the limitations of each claim separately consistent with
37 CFR
§ 1.192 (c)(7) and (8) (1995). See page 3 of the examiner's
answer.
Appellant acknowledges that Hamisch discloses a hand-held
labeler corresponding to the labeler called for in appealed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007