Appeal No. 2001-1404
Application No. 09/145,399
not set forth. The same reasoning applies to the language of
concern to the examiner in respective method claims 6 and 7.
Claim 14, a dependent apparatus claim, is viewed as
indefinite by the examiner for failure to recite means to
support the functional limitation “being stationary”. As we
see it, the language of the claim is understandable and, as
such, the claim is definite in meaning. It must be kept in
mind that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in defining
something by what it does rather than by what it is. See In
re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981).
The obviousness rejections
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 13, 14,
and 25 based upon the combination of Gilchrist in view of
PAXAR 8500 and Parker.
Each of claims 1, 8, and 25 is drawn to a method of
making a looped label, while claims 13 and 14 set forth an
apparatus for making a looped label.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007