Appeal No. 96-1211
Application 08/173,083
which a portion of adhesive (18) engages release agent (24). This is seen in that area
(26) must be sufficient so that strips (19) and (22) do not engage when the labels are
shingled. See column 3, lines 37-49 of Bane.
The rejection of claims 15, 18, and 22 is affirmed.
3. Group 3
Claim 16 is representative of this group and requires the additional limitation that step
c) is further practiced by taking the shingled layers up in a roll. Appellant argues that the
teaching of Lane is contrary to what is recited in claim 16 (Appeal Brief, Paragraph
bridging pages 9-10). However, Bane, not Lane, expressly teaches that the labels can be
taken up in roll form. See Figure 1. We find no error in the examiner’s conclusion that the
subject matter of claim 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection of claims 16 and 23 is affirmed.
4. Group 4
Claim 17 is representative of this group and requires that step b) is practiced to
provide a plurality of label stock ties connecting each label to surrounding matrix material
of the web or another label. As set forth above, the examiner agreed with appellant’s
grouping of the claims. Appellant correctly points out that the final rejection did not
discuss the specific limitations of claim 17. Nor does the Examiner’s Answer. By statute
this Board serves as a Board of review, not as a de novo examining tribunal. 35 U.S.C. §
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007