Appeal No. 1999-2063
Application No. 08/744,432
Webendorfer indicates that straight tearing or reuse of the
article are of any particular concern in any of the primary
references. The examiner’s implication that the proposed
modification would have been obvious because of the structural
similarities between Rogers and the primary references also is
not well taken. From our perspective, the many
rationalizations offered in support of the rejections on
appeal demonstrate that the examiner has impermissibly
employed appellants’ claims as a template to selectively piece
together isolated disclosures in the prior art in an effort to
construct a facsimile of appellants’ claimed invention.
In any event, even if the references were combined in the
manner proposed by the examiner, it is questionable whether
the resulting structure would meet the limitations in the
independent claims on appeal. Each of appellants’ independent
claims calls for a second panel that extends from the
transverse fold line to the bottom edge of the label ply. In
O’Brien, Ehret and Webendorfer, the second panels do not
extend to the bottom of the label because of the presence of
the bight portion of the U-shaped adhesive area. Likewise,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007