Appeal No. 2000-1665
Application 08/752,529
examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections may no
longer be valid and, at the very least, the double patenting
rejections would no longer be provisional. Neither appellant
nor the examiner has addressed these possibilities.
Accordingly, we REMAND this application back to the examiner
for consideration of the obviousness-type double patenting
rejections now that the application (08/940,859) relied upon
therein has issued as a U.S. patent.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
through 8, 12 through 17, 19 through 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Thalenfeld and Petrou, we have reviewed the
applied references and agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the labeling art would have found it prima
facie obvious to employ the release layer labeling approach
disclosed in Petrou in association with the merchandise holder
and adhesive label of Thalenfeld so as to gain the advantages
discussed in Petrou at column 1, lines 36-58, and set forth in
claims 4 and 5 of Petrou.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007