Ex Parte Kreutner - Page 9

              Appeal 2007-2897                                                                                         
              Application 09/934,777                                                                                   
                     Appellant argues "[l]abeling boxes having numeric indicia or other symbols,                       
              even if color coded, does not arise to the present claimed invention."  (Br. 17.)                        
              With respect to this argument Appellant references a Declaration of record                               
              submitted by the inventor, Chris Kreutner.  The Declaration describes sales of                           
              “labeled packaging tape” (Declaration, at 2), and discusses the teachings of Hunter                      
              and Williams (id. at 3-4).  Hunter is no longer relied upon by the Examiner.  The                        
              Declaration does not explain how the sales are tied to the claimed invention or                          
              discuss the cited prior art teachings as a whole.  In fact, the Declaration is silent                    
              with respect to the teachings of Plummer, Kitagawa, and Okisawa.  Thus, we find                          
              the Declaration does not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the Examiner’s                          
              prima facie case of obviousness.                                                                         
                     Appellant also argues that neither Plummer nor Williams discloses pre-                            
              printing indicia repeatedly on a roll of adhesive tape.  (Br. 16.)  We disagree.  The                    
              Examiner relies on Plummer for teaching colored tape with repeated indicia,                              
              including letters.  (Plummer, col. 3, ll. 59-63.)  Williams further teaches that it was                  
              known to those of ordinary skill in the art to have messages pre-printed on a carrier                    
              layer of a tape and it is further known to customize the message desired on the                          
              tape.  (Williams, col. 1, ll. 43-53.)  It was also known in the art to customize tape                    
              with an address or destination, company name or warning.  (Williams, col. 2, ll.                         
              23-31, col. 3, ll. 33-36.)  In any case, it would have been obvious to one of                            
              ordinary skill in the art to substitute the repeated indicia of Plummer with the                         
              destination of Williams, thereby obtaining the invention of claim 6.  Such a                             
              substitution does not lend patentability to an invention otherwise old in the art,                       
              absent unexpected results.  See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740                        
              (2007) (“the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field . . .                       
              must do more than yield a predictable result”).                                                          


                                                         - 9 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013