Appeal No. 97-1440
Application 08/187,838
10, 15 through 17 and 19, it is apparent to us that, for the
reasons advanced by appellant in the brief, the identification
tag of Ohno with its removable release layer (C) extending over
the entire lower side of the tag is not an anticipation of the
identification bracelet defined in appellant's above enumerated
claims on appeal. Although it is intended that only the cover
portion of the release layer (C) at (3a) be removed to expose
the adhesive (B) as seen in Figure 5 of Ohno, it is nonetheless
true that the remainder of the release layer (C) of the baggage
tag (3), and on the other parts of the tag (4) and (5) of Ohno,
is removable from the adjacent laminates which make up the body
portion of the tag therein and is therefore clearly not a
laminate of an identification tag or bracelet which is
permanently bonded to the adjacent coextensive laminates of the
bracelet over a majority of the body portion as required in
appellant's claims on appeal. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 6, 9, 10, 15 through 17 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) will not be sustained.
Independent claim 13 on appeal expressly requires the
body portion of the multiplicity of bracelets therein to be
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007