Appeal No. 1999-2566
Application 08/868,935
over the combined teachings of Steidinger and Holmes, Holmes
transfers his label from one backing web to another backing
web in a particular manner so that a ribbon can be inserted
beneath the label. The examiner has not explained why this
teaching would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
use this technique in Stewart’s method wherein conventional
label stock is adhered to a form and then the product is die
cut.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed invention over the combined teachings of
Stewart and Holmes. Hence, we reverse the rejection over this
combination of references.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 12-
20, 23 and 25 over Steidinger in view of Holmes, claims 24 and
26 over Steidinger in view of Holmes and Stewart, and claims
1-3, 12-20 and 23-26 over Stewart in view of Holmes, are
reversed.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007