Appeal No. 97-1440
Application 08/187,838
On page 8 of the brief, appellant seeks to distinguish
the identification bracelet of claims 1, 6 and 15 on appeal from
the identification tag of Ohno by pointing out that the release
paper (C), seen in Figures 1, 4 and 5 of Ohno as providing the
entire lower laminate of the body portion of the luggage tag
therein, "does not have any portion permanently secured to the
tag at any location" (emphasis in original). Appellant contends
that the release paper (C) is not permanently bonded to the tag
of Ohno because, if it were, Ohno would be inoperative. The
examiner contends (answer, page 4) that the release paper (C) of
Ohno is considered to be "relatively permanently" bonded to the
confronting laminate therein because the terminology "relatively
permanently" is understood to mean "not absolutely permanently"
or more permanent relative to something else.
It is an essential prerequisite that the scope and
content of the claimed subject matter be fully understood prior
to the application of prior art thereto. Accordingly, we direct
our attention to appellant's independent claims 1, 6 and 15 to
derive an understanding of the scope and content thereof. More
particularly, we look to the specification, claims and arguments
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007