Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 through
20, 26 through 28, 40 through 49 and 52 through 56 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.
While we consider that the examiner’s combination of the
applied references would have rendered obvious the method
broadly set forth in claims 40 through 49, 52 and 53 on
appeal, we must agree with appellant (brief, page 24) that
neither Thalenfeld nor Petrou makes any reference whatsoever
to merchandising support shelving or to labeling on such
shelving as is required in claims 13 through 20, 26 through 28
and 54 through 56 on appeal. With regard to the later group
of claims, the examiner’s position (answer, page 15) that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007