Appeal No. 1999-1317
Application No. 08/632,216
separating individual labels from a web of linerless labels as
required by claim 1. Hence, the examiner’s finding that
Fayolle discloses each and every element of the mechanism
recited in claim 1 is not well taken.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 and 3 which
depend therefrom, as being anticipated by Fayolle.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1 through 9,
12 through 18, 20 and 21
Fayolle is the primary reference applied in support of
each of the examiner’s § 103(a) rejections. For the reasons
expressed above, the label applying device disclosed by
Fayolle does not meet the limitation in independent claim 1
requiring “a separator that separates the individual labels
from the web of linerless labels.” Similarly, the label
applying method taught by Fayolle does not meet the
corresponding limitation in independent claim 12 requiring the
step of “separating the individual labels from the web of
linerless labels”. The examiner’s reliance on Kish to
overcome these deficiencies is unsound.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007