Appeal No. 2000-0304 Page 6
Application No. 08/778,688
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In
determining obviousness/nonobviousness, an invention must be
considered "as a whole," 35 U.S.C. § 103, and claims must be
considered in their entirety. Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
The examiner is of the opinion that the Stewart reference
discloses:
. . . a business form with a removable
label comprising a first paper layer (60),
a liner material layer (59), a permanent
adhesive layer (80), a removable adhesive
layer (82), and a second paper layer (12).
[Examiner’s answer at page 4].
The examiner, recognizing that Stewart does not disclose
a permanent adhesive release material layer, relies on Cross
for teaching of a permanent adhesive release material layer
for use in a rolled intermediate and concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have provided the
label stock of Stewart with the release
material of Cross to enable the
intermediate to be processed in a rolled
configuration and easily unrolled when
desired.[Examiner’s answer at page 4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007