Appeal No. 1997-1282
Application No. 07/839,369
the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection for essentially those reasons set forth at pages 7-
18 of the Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The examiner states (Answer, page 3) that:
Freedman discloses a label stock comprising a roll
of layered film (see col. 3, lines 38-45) and
further comprising a multilayered film having
printable facestock and adhesive outer layers and
joined by two polymeric films of a different
composition constituting a peelable interface (see
col. 2, line 55 and col. 3, line 37). The film
plies adhere to a sufficiently high degree to
withstand processing conditions required to make the
film into labelstock. Freedman further discloses
that the labels are used to label cans, bottles or
boxes (see col. 4, lines 18-22). The two polymeric
films are polyethylene and polypropylene (see col.
5, lines 48-59).
Recognizing that Freedman does not disclose the claimed
heat-activatable adhesive layer, the examiner asserts (Answer,
page 5) that:
Freedman states that the adhesive used may be a hot
melt which is an adhesive flows due to heat. It is
the Examiner’s position [sic, that] the hot melt and
heat activated [sic, adhesives] are equivalent.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007