Appeal No. 97-1088
Application 08/518,957
We shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 3, 11 through 13, 19 and 23 as being
anticipated by West.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and requires the panel member
to engage the container between adjacent beads. Claim 23 also
depends from claim 1 and requires the beads to have a rear
surface engageable with the exterior surface of the container.
West’s outer body section/panel member 5 and compound/beads 8 do
not engage the bottle or container A associated therewith. In
this regard, the examiner’s finding that the backing component 9
of West’s label forms the exterior of the bottle A (see page 3 in
the answer) is inconsistent with the express teachings of West
and is completely unreasonable. Independent claim 11 requires
that the beads be “formed separately from the . . . panel
member.” As is evident from the passages from the West
disclosure reproduced above, the compound 8 as it exists in the
West label is not formed separately from the outer body section
5. Thus, West does not meet all of the limitations in claim 11,
or in claims 12, 13 and 19 which depend therefrom.
We shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 6, or of claim 10 which depends therefrom, as being
unpatentable over West. In short, West does not teach and would
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007