Appeal No. 98-2033
Application 08/507,623
would have suggested, a closure seal having on its top surface
a pattern having adjoining high-gloss and matte areas as
recited in claim 1. The examiner considers that "[t]o form
the top surface [of the Jones label] from adjoining high-gloss
and matte areas would have been obvious to a skilled artisan"
(final rejection, page 2). The appellant, on the other hand,
submits that
[t]he closure seal of the present application
has on its top surface a pattern having adjoining
high-gloss and matte areas. Such a pattern is
rendered invisible when covered with a clear,
transparent adhesive tape. Thus, if the seal is cut
(in order to gain access to a container) and then
overlaid with a transparent seal in register with
the original seal,
the original pattern will not appear, providing evidence
of the possibility that there has been access to the
container. . . . Thus, unlike Jones, Jr., where the tamper
evidence is purely mechanical, the tamper evidence
provided by the present closure seal is purely visual. . .
. Nowhere does the reference suggest forming on his label
any particular pattern (except the word
"customs"), let alone a pattern having
adjoining high-gloss and matte areas.
Moreover, since he makes no use of the
pattern for evidence of tampering . . .
, there would be no incentive to modify the
pattern on his label [main brief, page 3].
From our perspective, the top surface of the Jones label
15 bearing the printed word "CUSTOMS" would have been
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007