Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
argument unpersuasive and conclude that the examiner has properly
combined the instant three references.
The appellants next argue that, even when the references are
considered collectively, they do not disclose the instantly
claimed invention. They urge that none of the references disclose
the feature that the label is applied to the exposed region of the
products of an imbricated stream so as to overlie the printing
thereon, and that the references do not teach a partially
transparent contrast panel. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 4-11).
As regards the first portion of this argument, it is clear
that Doane discloses that the cover may be printed as discussed
above. As regards the second portion of this argument, it is
urged that Popat only discloses clear labels and that “[t]here is
no hint that the label might be anything else but clear or
substantially transparent.” (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 32-33).
Such clear labels are stated to be invisible when applied, and
therefore, it is asserted, they cannot be a contrast panel.
(Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 12-18).
This viewpoint overlooks the clear teaching in Popat that the
decorative labels need not be entirely transparent. (Column 5,
lines 43-45). While it is true that one part of this cited
teaching is made by way of decorative tinting, the appellants also
overlook the importance of the teaching at column 3, line 53 -
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007