Appeal No. 1998-0785
Application No. 08/618,794
of the label. (Answer, page 7). The examiner relies upon
Ritchey for this aspect of the invention. (Office Action
of Paper No. 7, page 2). The examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to provide contrasting labels in
the manner taught by Ritchey in the Cranfill debossing
process to improve the aesthetic appearance of the label of
Cranfill. (Office Action of Paper No. 7, page 3).
Appellants’ claim 1, requires, inter alia, applying a
label to a substrate using an adhesive, heating portions of
this label to melt these heated portions of the label,
heating portions of the substrate to which the label is
attached, at locations corresponding to the heated portions
of the label, and debossing these heated substrate
portions, wherein the debossed substrate portions are
exposed through the label.1
We find that the examiner’s rejection does not
appreciate the above-mentioned requirements of claim 1; nor
does the examiner’s rejection properly compare these
requirements with Cranfill and Ritchey. Hence, the
examiner has not properly ascertained the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue, as required
by Graham v. John Deere Co., Id. Our reasons for this
conclusion are outlined below.
The reference of Cranfill concerns an embossing method
(col. 1, lines 33-36). It is disputed among appellants and
the examiner as to whether “debossing” actually occurs in
the reference of Cranfill. (Brief, pages 6 and 7, Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3, and the Answer, page 6).
Upon our review of Cranfill, we find that the method of
Cranfill indeed creates indentations of some sort within
1 We note that appellants' other independent claim 6 also
encompasses these limitations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007