Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
regard, the examiner is of the view that Thalenfeld shows the
invention as claimed except for the fact that this reference
lacks a release layer between the label and the label
supporting surface. To address this limitation, the examiner
turns to Petrou, noting, inter alia, that:
Petrou teaches the use of a label attachment element
which is attached to a support surface 16, which has a
release value which is less than the release value of the
surface 16 (Petrou: Col. 1, lines 43-55). It would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Appellant’s invention to modify the label
supporting surface to have a label attachment element
between the label and the label supporting surface in
view of Petrou in order to provide a means of using
inexpensive permanent pressure sensitive labels on a
surface in which the labels are changed frequently
(Petrou: Col 2, lines 56-65). (answer, page 12).
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 36)
for the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted
rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 33) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision on the issues raised in this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007