Appeal No. 1998-0785
Application No. 08/618,794
Therefore, Ritchey lacks the aspect of appellants’
claims requiring “applying the label to the substrate with
the adhesive side in contact with the substrate . . .;
heating portions of the substrate, which portions
corresponding to the predetermined label portions, . . .
and debossing the substrate portions . . . , wherein the
debossed substrate portions are exposed through the label”.
Hence, Ritchey does not cure the aforementioned
deficiencies of Cranfill, and accordingly, the combination
of references does not arrive at appellants’ claimed
invention.
On pages 8 and 9 of their Brief, appellants also argue
that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
Ritchey with the disclosure of Cranfill. Appellants argue
that Cranfill already teaches that the aesthetic appearance
can be improved by using a shiny, metallic label, and that
therefore the examiner’s reason for combining the
references is inappropriate. Appellants further argue that
one would not substitute the foil of Cranfill with the
complex label of Ritchey because (1) it does not simplify
the process since the label of Ritchey is complex, (2) the
Ritchey label would not work in the die press process of
Cranfill, and (3) Ritchey’s label requires a different
method of forming an indicia.
The examiner rebuts and states that the use of multiple
coloring in a label is not taught by Cranfill, and that,
for aesthetic appearance purposes, one skilled in the art
would be motivated to incorporate such a teaching into
Cranfill. The examiner also argues that one skilled in the
art would be motivated to utilize the recessed indicia as
taught in Ritchey in the process of Cranfill. (Answer,
page 7).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007