Appeal No. 96-0308
Application No. 07/854,192
Appellants’ Claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An instructional apparatus, comprising:
a label adapted for being releasibly secured
to a product; and
means for repetitively and reusably recording
a vocal message into said label indicative of an
identifiable characteristic associated with said
product.
The Examiner’s Answer lists the following prior art:
Dittakavi 4,602,152 Jul. 22, 1986
Kondo 4,791,741 Dec. 20, 1988
Tarlow et al.(PCT application) WO 88/10489 Dec. 29, 1988
OPINION
This appeal involves three separate rejections applicable
respectively to Claims 1-18, Claims 19-21, and Claim 22. The
three rejections are addressed separately below.
Claims 1-18
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tarlow in view of Kondo. Claims 2-14 stand or
fall with Claim 1 and Claims 16-18 stand or fall with Claim 15.
Appeal Brief at 6, lines 3-5.
The Examiner finds that Tarlow teaches the invention recited
in Claims 1 and 15 except for the means for repeatedly and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007