Appeal No. 1998-0566
Application No. 08/396,005
We reach the same conclusion, for the same reasons, with
regard to the rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over
Kanzelberger in view of Smith. Claim 5 is dependent from
claim 1 through claim 4. The teaching in claim 1 that is
missing from Kanzelberger is not found in Smith, which was
cited for teaching depressing the channel in which the
transparent tape containing the graphics is positioned. The
rejection of claim 5 is not sustained for lack of a prima
facie case of obviousness.
The addition of Rader to Kanzelberger also falls short of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of claims 6 and 7, which depend from claim
1. Rader was applied for the purpose of demonstrating the
obviousness of placing a finding on the badge (claim 6) or a
finding in the form of a separate plate that fits over posts
attached to the back of the badge (claim 7). Be that as it
may, Rader does not cure the problem with Kanzelberger
regarding the exposed rear face of the plastic plate.
Claim 8, which depends directly from claim 1, stands
rejected on the basis of Kanzelberger and Rader, considered
further with Fan, which teaches providing a name badge with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007