Appeal No. 1998-0483
Application No. 08/543,840
deformation of the label.
Although we have rejected claims 1 through 6, 10 and 11
as being indefinite, in the interest of avoiding piecemeal
appellate review we will treat claim 1 as though "the label"
in step (1) were -- the segment --, and proceed to consider
the
§ 103 rejection on that basis. Cf. Ex parte Saceman, 27
USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 13 and 15
through 18.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 10
through 13 and 15 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dickey in view of Herdzina and we affirm the
rejection of claims 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dickey in view of Herdzina.
Method claim 1 requires, inter alia, the step of applying
the leading edge of the "stretched segment" to the article
with an adhesive.
A review of the Herdzina reference reveals that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007