Appeal No. 1998-0785
Application No. 08/618,794
of Ritchey cure these deficiencies of Cranfill for the
following reasons.
The examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to
incorporate the teachings found in Ritchey of exposing an
underlying layer of a label2 (substratum) by melting an
overlying layer of the label (superstratum), into the
method of Cranhill, to arrive at appellants’ invention.
(Office Action of Paper No. 7, page 2, Answer, page 5).
The examiner takes the position that the substratum of
Ritchey is a substrate. (Answer, page 7). Appellants
disagree with the examiner’s interpretation, and argue that
the substratum could hardly be equated to the substrate of
their claims. (Brief, page 8).
We also disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of
Ritchey. Ritchey teaches to provide indicia to a label
only, not to both a label and a substrate whereby the label
is attached to a substrate by an adhesive, as required by
appellants’ claims (Figs. 1-11 and corresponding text of
Ritchey). We therefore disagree with the examiner’s
attempt to define Ritchey’s substratum 18 as a substrate
within the meaning of appellants’ claims, because
substratum 18 of Ritchey is in fact a layer of a label, not
a substrate to which a label is attached by an adhesive, as
required by appellants’ claims. Ritchey does not teach to
melt portions of a label, that is attached by an adhesive
to a substrate, and to deboss corresponding portions of
such a substrate (which is attached to the label by an
adhesive), wherein the debossed substrate portions are
exposed through the label.
2 We use the word “label” here, but note, as the examiner points out on
page 7 of the Answer, Ritchey also uses the word “panel”. However, Ritchey
teaches that the panel may be used for a label of any desired type (col. 4,
lines 39-41). Hence, we have chosen to use the word “label”.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007