Appeal No. 95-2346
Application 08/147,093
unpatentable over Dean in view of Bellis in combination with
either Cannistra or Malachowski, as applied against claim 1,
and further in view of Smith. According to the examiner
[i]t would have been obvious to employ the teaching as
set forth by Smith and adhesively bond the layers of the
articles of the teachings set forth by the references in
(16) above [the rejection of claim 1]. Such a
combination would have been obvious as all cited
references relate to process [sic] for laminating
articles together. [final rejection, page 5]
Smith, like Dean, Bellis, Cannistra and Malachowski,
contains no teaching or suggestion of appellant's claimed
method
including the steps of forming a strip of printable material
having at least a front panel, a rear panel and an insert
panel within a continuous web of raw material for sequential
processing or printing on the formed strip of the web.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejections of
independent claims 1, 12 and 16.
For the same reasons, the rejection of claims 2 through
5, dependent on claim 1 and rejected on the same ground as
claim 1, and the rejection of claims 15 and 19, dependent on
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007