Appeal No. 1999-2566
Application 08/868,935
portion, so that a ribbon segment (31) which engages the
second backing web is wedged between the label and the second
backing web (col. 5, lines 11-28; figure 7).
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Holmes’ method
for that of Steidinger because Holmes’ method and Steidinger’s
method are two equivalent methods for delivering patches to a
form web (answer, page 4). The examiner, however, has not
established that Holmes’ method and that of Steidinger are
equivalent. Holmes transfers his label from one backing web
to another backing web in a particular way so that a ribbon
can be inserted between the label and the second backing web.
Steidinger discloses a different method for a different
purpose, i.e., making an integrated form having a particular
structure.
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007