Appeal No. 96-3332
Application 08/321,025
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
The respective rejections of appellants’ claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained.4
As earlier noted, the invention on appeal is based upon
the primary object of providing optimized perforation lines in
linerless label webs.
As readily discernible from the content of the rejection
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only the specific
teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4 We lack a full understanding of the notation used by appellants in claim 1,
i.e., a cut to tie ratio of “.018 x .008 to .012 x .008. The meaning of “x” is not
apparent, particularly in conjunction with “.008". Further, it is unclear to us whether
.018 x .008 to .012 x .008 is intended to set forth a ratio or whether this expression
denotes a range of values for the ratio. This matter will be raised in our remand to
the examiner, infra. Nevertheless, we understand claim 1 to the extent that we can
address the deficiency of the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007