Ex Parte Coppens et al - Page 2


               Appeal No. 2006-0468                                                                                                  
               Application 09/885,395                                                                                                

                       a first adhesive layer comprising a heat activatable adhesive and carried by the first major                  
               side of the backing layer;                                                                                            
                       a second adhesive layer other than a hot melt adhesive layer, comprising an elastomeric                       
               microsphere adhesive and carried by the first adhesive layer; and                                                     
                       means for retroreflecting light carried by the second major side of the backing layer.                        
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                 
               Bingham     3,758,192    Sep. 11, 1973                                                                                
               Silver et al. (Silver)    5,118,750    Jun.    2, 1992                                                                
               Stahl      6,194,044    Feb . 27, 2001                                                                                
                       The examiner has rejected appealed claims 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.                               
               § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Silver (final action mailed November 1,                          
               2004 (final action), pages 2-4), and appealed claims 21, 23 and 26 through 30 under 35 U.S.C.                         
               § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Silver, and further in view of Bingham                           
               (final action, pages 4-5).1                                                                                           
                       Appellants argue claims of each ground of rejection as a group (see brief in entirety).                       
               Thus, we decide this appeal based on independent claims 19 and 26 as representative of the                            
               grounds of rejection and appellants’ groupings of claims.  37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September                       
               2004).                                                                                                                
                       We affirm.                                                                                                    
                       Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,                       
               we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.                                            
                                                              Opinion                                                                
                       We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                      
               agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed                         
               labels encompassed by claims 19 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined teachings                            
               of Stahl and Silver with respect to claim 19 and the combined teachings of Stahl, Silver and                          
               Bingham with respect to claim 26 to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed                         
               invention was made.  Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established                        
               by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based                        




                                                                - 2 -                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007