Appeal No. 1997-4389 Page 13
Application No. 08/546,925
Claims 12 and 13
The appellants argue (brief, p. 13) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter of
claims 12 and 13. Specifically, the appellants argue that
Smith does not teach or suggest the claimed hub mounted for
rotation and having a contact area with the core in excess of
50% of the area of the core of the supply of linerless labels.
We agree.
Claims 12 and 13 require the linerless label dispenser to
include a hub mounted for rotation and having a contact area
with the core in excess of 50% of the area of the core of the
supply of linerless labels. It is clear from our review of
the applied prior art that these limitations are not suggested
by the applied prior art. While the examiner found (answer,
p. 15) that Smith teaches a hub made of parts 10, 12, 14
having a contact area with the core in excess of 50% of the
area of the core, we fail to find that teaching in Smith. In
fact, Smith teaches that his tape roll includes core segments
10, 12, and 14. Thus, segments 10, 12, and 14 are the core of
the tape roll. Our review of Smith reveals that Smith
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007