Appeal No. 1996-3198 Page 10
Application No. 08/371,642
from such disparate prior art selections as culled by the
examiner, without the benefit of impermissible hindsight. With
regard to claims 6 and 7, the thickness of the elastomer is
required to be varied. Here, the examiner has not explained
how the applied references would have suggested modifying the
apparently uniformly thick sleeve of Araujo for application to
a labeler as claimed. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner's stated rejection(s) of claims 2, 5-7, and 10-12.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamisch in
view of Araujo and to reject claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Hamisch in view of Araujo and
further in view of Bronson is affirmed. However, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hamisch in view of Araujo and to reject
claims 5-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hamisch in view of Araujo and further in view
of Bronson is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007