Appeal No. 96-2625
Application 08/329,536
of a transparent layer which eventually abuts the substrate
protects the printing from damage, (col. 3, lines 28-29)”
(answer, page 4).
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not print on Heatwole’s peelable layer because if the
printing were on that layer, the label could not be
transferred to a second surface without the printing being
lost when the peelable layer is discarded during the transfer
process (reply brief, pages 4-5). Thus, appellants argue, the
modification to Heatwole proposed by the examiner would
destroy Heatwole for its intended purpose (reply brief, page
5).
The examiner responds that the printing on the inner
portion of Heatwole’s peelable layer would change the purpose
of that portion of the peelable layer (supplemental answer,
page 2). Consequently, the examiner argues, one of ordinary
skill in the art would not transfer the label to a second
surface as taught by Heatwole but, rather, would leave the
label on the first surface (see id.).
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007