Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
of a transparent label. Popat discloses a partially transparent
label.
The appellants then state that the Jackson reference is “non-
analogous” in that it teaches the separate handling of products
and one concerned with imbricated streams would not look to
Jackson. We disagree with this interpretation of Jackson.
Imbricated streams and individual processing are not so different
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Jackson.
Indeed, we find that Figure 3 of Jackson illustrates an imbricated
stream (Reference Numerals 107, 18) feeding the labeling and
printing station. While in this embodiment the actual printing
does not occur on the imbricated stream, the appellants’ argument
that imbrication and Jackson’s printing method are unrelated
clearly fails.
The appellants finally assert that the use of Popat, which is
said to relate to a particular construction of clear labels which
are removed by a user and applied to envelopes, is improper
(Appeal Brief, page 4, lines 24-36). Consequently, it is urged,
no modification of an imbricated stream can be suggested. The
appellants’ argument is misplaced. Popat is not suggesting that
the imbricated stream be altered, but is relied upon by the
examiner for the proposition that cheap white labels be replaced
with transparent or tinted labels. We therefore find this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007