Appeal No. 2004-0120
Application No. 09/898,334
system where the label remains attached while Ong teaches that a
label is replaced every time the title is modified (Brief, page
10).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Lazar teaches that
the writing surface of the label may be protected by a
transparent sheet (col. 2, ll. 30-34; Paper No. 6, page 3).
Furthermore, Lazar teaches that the whiteboard label may be
secured to a holder (i.e., a binder) in any desirable manner (see
col. 4, ll. 59-65). Ong has been applied by the examiner to show
a method of attaching a label to a binder by inserting the label
(42) in a pocket (30') located on any member surface (Paper No.
6, page 4; Answer, page 5). Accordingly, we determine that Lazar
and Ong do not teach away from each other but merely teach
different methods of attaching a label to an article.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in the
Answer and in the final Office action (Paper No. 6), we determine
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellant’s arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007