Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
The appellants also argue that claims 22 and 23 are
separately patentable as defining the use of printing means or
station positioned to print the individual labels. It is asserted
that Doane utilizes pre-printed labels and there is no suggestion
to incorporate a printing station in Doane. Finally, it is again
contended that a major redesign of Doane would have to be
accomplished to include a printing station. (Appeal Brief, page
10, lines 7-17).
As noted above, Doane teaches only the application of a
perforated address label (column 3, lines 68-69). It is not
expressly required that it be a preprinted label. Further, we
again note that there is no evidence whatsoever that the addition
of a printing head would require a major redesign of Doane such
that Doane can be read as teaching away from its inclusion.
Finally, we note again that the three references in combination
render the instantly claimed invention obvious, and the references
should not be considered exclusively individually. We therefore
affirm the rejection as it applies to claims 22 and 23 as well.
Rebuttal Evidence
The appellants have submitted, in a document dated October
31, 2001, two exhibits, which they state establish novelty and
unobviousness. (Appeal Brief, page 7, paragraph c et seq.).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted if the appellant
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007