Appeal No. 95-0900
Application 07/947,117
Heitmann. We reverse all the stated rejections for reasons2
which follow.
OPINION
The method of appealed claim 6 requires three linear
horizontal transfer movements, including removing the label from
an inclined planar surface.
The examiner concedes that Hannen does not teach picking up
labels from an inclined planar surface nor does Hannen teach
pressing the labels against the roll by virtue of the horizontal
path the clamp element travels (answer, page 3). The examiner
states that Hannen was cited to show appellants’ adhesive
activation device in combination with a reciprocating label
applicator (answer, page 6).
The examiner has relied upon Matuda to provide “motivation
for omitting the horizontal [sic, vertical?] movement of Hannen’s
applicator as well as for applying the label by way of a
horizontal transfer movement.” (answer, page 7). However, as
argued by appellants on pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief and
2 It is noted that the examiner’s answer incorrectly lists claims 6, 7,
10 and 12 as being the subject of every rejection instead of reciting claim 9 and
claims 8 and 11 as the subject for the second and third rejections, respectively
(see the answer, pages 4 and 5). However, the claims are set forth correctly for
each rejection in the final rejection and appellants recite the correct status of
the claims on page 1 of the main brief. This inadvertent error is therefore
harmless.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007