Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
Popat discloses a particular embodiment where a blue envelope
is provided with a transparent paper label having a slightly
reddish tint. When used on a blue envelope, it is observed that
the area underneath the label has a slightly purple tint. (See
Popat, column 5, lines 45-48). We find that this change in the
tint will draw the eye to the label without obscuring the area
under the label, within the meaning of the appellants’
specification and claims.
We therefore agree with the examiner’s interpretation of
Popat that it is not limited to a “substantially” transparent
label. We furthermore conclude that a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established, for the reasons expressed by the
examiner, and those recited above.
Turning now to the dependent claims, the appellants observe
that dependent claims 11, 20, and 21 require a label to be
adhesively applied to the printed surface of each printed product
in the imbricated stream, and that the information is printed onto
each label after the label is adhesively bonded to the printed
surface. (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 15-20). The appellants
assert that Jackson’s teaching of separately handled products is
non-analogous to the instantly claimed imbricated stream, the
proposed addition of a printing step to Jackson’s conveyor would
not be obvious because there is no room downstream where the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007