Appeal No. 97-1088
Application 08/518,957
not have suggested a method meeting the limitations in claim 6
requiring the steps of placing a plurality of solid beads
adjacent the exterior surface of an object and applying a label
over the beads and to the object so as to provide a horizontally
ribbed label surface. Although West’s label does include a
ribbed surface, such is formed via a method which differs
substantially from that recited in claim 6.
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claim 20 as being unpatentable over West. Claim 20 depends
from claim 1 and requires the beads to be made of plastic or
paper. The West reference would not have suggested, and indeed
appears to teach away from, replacing the compound/beads 8 of
self-luminous or radio active substances disclosed therein with
plastic or paper.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over West. Claim 21
depends from claim 1 and requires the beads to be made of non-
particulate material. The examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to make West’s compound/beads 8 of a non-
particulate material (see page 3 in the answer) is reasonable on
its face. As discussed above, the appellant’s assertion that
West teaches the compound 8 to be made of a particulate material
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007