Appeal No. 2000-0259
Application No. 08/827,835
basis of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968), rehearing denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
We have also reviewed the Briechle and Gomersall references,
applied by the Examiner against several dependent claims, and
find nothing that would overcome the deficiencies of the prior
art references discussed supra. Accordingly, since the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, the
rejection of independent claims 19 and 29, as well as claims
20-28 and 30-34 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 35, and its dependent claims 36,
38, and 39, in which the Briechle reference is applied in the
alternative to Sundelin, Waterhouse, or Joliey, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. We are in agreement with Appellant
(Brief, page 14) that there is no disclosure in the Briechle
reference, nor any of the other applied prior art, of the details
of the attachment structure which fastens the price tag modules
to the carrier strip as set forth in independent claim 35.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007