Appeal No. 2000-0107
Application 08/905,072
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d
115, 117, 10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We find no
such suggestion in this case.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 9, as well as
of dependent claims 2 to 8 and 10 to 18, will not be
sustained.
Remand to the Examiner
In considering the scope of claims 1 and 9, we note that
these claims do not require that the "information" printed on
the auxiliary portion be different from the "identifying
information" on the mailing portion. Therefore, these claims
may be readable on a continuous assembly of labels, similar to
appellant's Fig. 1 embodiment, in which "identifying
information" such as "certified mail," etc., is printed on all
of the labels, so that every two successive labels would
correspond to the recited "mailing portion" and "auxiliary
portion," respectively.
The embodiment of appellant's Fig. 1 is disclosed in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007