Appeal No. 1999-2566
Application 08/868,935
not explained why the mere fact that Steidinger’s and
Stewart’s label structures were both known label structures
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, substituting Stewart’s structure for that of Steidinger.
More significantly, as discussed above regarding the rejection
over the combined teachings of Steidinger and Holmes, the
examiner has not explained why the applied references
themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Steidinger and Holmes. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection over the combined teachings of
Steidinger, Holmes and Stewart.
Rejection over Stewart in view of Holmes
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Holmes’
transfer method for Stewart’s patch supply method because they
are equivalent methods (answer, page 6). The examiner,
however, has not provided evidence which establishes that
these methods are equivalents. The examiner’s mere assertion
is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. As discussed above with regard to the rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007