Appeal No. 1998-1342
Application 08/460,204
examiner agrees that the labels described in Bane are “coated with two release
materials and two pressure sensitive adhesives rather than a single release material
and a single adhesive as is claimed here.” (Examiner’s Answer, page 3). In order to
make up this difference, the examiner concludes at page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer
that “the provision of only a single adhesive and release material would have been
obvious if only a single type of bonding was required.”
The examiner’s statement is no doubt true. However, the examiner has not
pointed to the facts in this record which establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art
had any reason, suggestion, or motivation to employ “a single type of bonding” in the
labels of Bane. We remind the examiner that conclusions of obviousness must be
based upon facts, not generalities. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785,
788, 165 USPQ 570, 571 (CCPA 1970).
The rejection of claims 1 through 11 is reversed.
Claims 12 and 23 through 25
These claims require that the assembly of linerless labels comprise a “matrix
material and a plurality of paper ties connecting each label to the matrix material.” In
reviewing the Examiner’s Answer, we find no statement from the examiner
acknowledging this aspect of the claimed subject matter. We have no facts and
reasoning from the examiner as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to create an assembly of linerless labels which comprise a “matrix
material and a plurality of paper ties connecting each label to the matrix material” as
required by these claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007