Appeal No. 1999-1834 Page 4
Application No. 08/876,030
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a proper basis for the rejections
set forth above. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
Claim 17, the sole independent claim pending in this
application, recites a method of making and using a label,
including the step of "highly calendering paper stock to form
a paper label substrate having first and second faces."
In all the rejections before us in this appeal, the
examiner has relied upon Soltysiak as teaching/suggesting this
limitation (answer, pp. 4-7). The appellant disagrees (brief,
pp. 4-5).
We agree with the examiner that Soltysiak teaches that
labels can be made from bond paper and that conventional bond
paper is calendered. However, all the claims at issue in this
appeal require the paper label substrate to be highly
calendered. We have reviewed the teachings of the applied
prior art and fail to find therein any teaching or suggestion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007