Appeal No. 2000-1665
Application 08/752,529
Thalenfeld alone.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 12 through 17, 19 through 32
and 35 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thalenfeld in view of Petrou. In this
regard, the examiner is of the view that Thalenfeld shows the
invention as claimed except for the fact that this reference
lacks a release layer between the label (60, col. 6, line 59 -
col. 7, line 6) and the label support surface (40). To
address this limitation, the examiner turns to Petrou, noting,
inter alia, that
Petrou teaches the use of a release layer (Fig. 2) which
is attached to a support surface 16, which has a release
value which is less than the release value of the surface
16 (Petrou: Col. 1, lines 43-55). It would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Appellant’s invention to modify the support
surface [40 of Thalenfeld] to have a release layer
between the label and the label support surface in view
of Petrou in order to provide a means of using
inexpensive permanent pressure sensitive labels on a
surface in which the labels are changed frequently
(Petrou: Col 2, lines 56-65). (answer, page 10).
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28)
for the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007