Appeal No. 97-1440
Application 08/187,838
our review, we have made the determination that neither of the
examiner's rejections will be sustained. Our reasoning in
support of this determination follows.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection under
§ 102(a), we note that independent claims 1 and 6 define the
identification bracelet therein as having a body portion formed
from a plurality of coextensive laminates that are "relatively
permanently bonded to each other over a majority of said body
portion." These claims also recite an "adhesive closure means"
which is said to include a "moveable cover means integrally
formed from, and constituting a portion of, one or more of said
laminates" (claim 1) or a "movable cover" (claim 6). The movable
cover portions of the bracelet laminates are selectively movable
from an initial position covering an adhesive means on the
bracelet to a subsequent position exposing the adhesive means so
that a first end portion of the bracelet may be attached to a
second end portion of the bracelet in an operative relationship
with a person or object to be identified. The terminology
requiring the laminates of the bracelet to be "relatively
permanently bonded" to each other except at the location of the
cover means also appears in independent claim 15.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007