Appeal No. 2004-0120
Application No. 09/898,334
that the admitted prior art expresses the need for a changeable
labeling system, as taught by Lazar, in the binder of Dottel. We
disagree with appellant’s assessment of Lazar as directed to
“toys and novelties” (Brief, page 8) since it is clear that Lazar
is directed to changeable labeling systems (e.g., see the title
and abstract, as well as the specific uses on video and audio
cassettes and holders).
Appellant argues that, even if the combination of references
is “valid,” the references fail to show front side or back side
labels, much less whiteboard labels with transparent covers on
front or back sides (Brief, page 8). This argument is not well
taken since it is based on features not recited nor required in
the claim under consideration (claim 1 on appeal).
With regard to the rejection of claim 19, appellant
reasserts all of the previous arguments (Brief, page 9).
Accordingly, we adopt our remarks and discussion from above, as
well as the examiner’s findings and conclusions of law from the
final Office action and the Answer. Appellant further argues
that the combination of Lazar and Ong is inappropriate because
they “teach away” from each other, Lazar directed to a labeling
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007