Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
30, 37 and 38 as being unpatentable over appellant's disclosed
prior art in view of Jones.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 11 which appears in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
Appellant's disclosure of the prior art (at pages 1 and 2
of the specification) provides, in effect, that side by side
label rolls may be shrink wrapped with an ink roller in a
package disposed in the central tubular opening of the rolls.
A prior art ink roller with one type of prior art package is
shown in appellant's figures 8 and 9.
Directing our attention to claim 11, appellant stresses
the shrink wrap has a "dual function of holding the rolls 11
and the ink roller container in tact . . . and of closing or
sealing off the container 19 and the roller which it houses"
(brief, page 11). The examiner counters that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
eliminate the removable cover from the ink roller container"
(answer, page 7). The examiner is suggesting that cover 32 in
Jones may be eliminated. However, even assuming that the
examiner is correct, this would not have provided the dual
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007