Appeal No. 1998-0785
Application No. 08/618,794
(B) the difference or differences in the claims over
the applied reference(s),
(C) the proposed modification of the applied
reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed
subject matter, and
(D) an explanation why one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made would have
been motivated to make the proposed modification.
MPEP § 706.02(j)(Rev. 1, Feb. 2000).
Also, the rejection must apply the following four
factual inquiries enunciated in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), as a background for
determining obviousness:
(A) Determining the scope and contents of the prior
art;
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the prior
art and the claims at issue; [emphasis added]
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art; and
(D) Evaluating evidence of secondary considerations.
MPEP § 2141 (Rev. 1, Feb. 2000).
Turning now to the issues of the instant case, the
examiner’s position is that Cranfill discloses a method for
embossing a label, made of an adhesive-backed piece of a
metal foil or plastic film, into a thermoplastic resin
substrate. The label is pressed into the substrate by
using a die 16 which is maintained at a certain temperature
in order to melt the substrate and adhere the label.
(Office Action of Paper No. 7, page 2). The examiner
acknowledges that Cranfill does not disclose melting away
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007