Appeal No. 1997-4389 Page 11
Application No. 08/546,925
disclosure. In that regard, even if the transport 105 of5
Carpenter were replaced with a tray as taught by Putzke, the
resulting structure would not have a plate capable of causing
a label to deviate from the predetermined path by contact with
the pressure sensitive adhesive face of the label. Such
teaching comes only from the appellants' disclosure. It
follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of
claims 1 to 7 and 14.
Claims 8 to 11
The appellants argue (reply brief, p. 6) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter of
claims 8 to 11. Specifically, the appellants argue that Jones
teaches away from the claimed wiper being formed of an open
cell material since Jones discloses that the outer covering
70A of each sleeve 68A is of a closed cell neoprene rubber
foam. We agree.
5The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an
obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course,
impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-
13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007