Appeal No. 2003-1685
Application No. 09/444,809
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse each of the
rejections.
Each of independent claims 31 and 35 requires that the first
housing section has a manually graspable handle and a latch
movably mounted on the section housing section. Each of these
claims also requires that the latch includes a single depressible
button accessible from outside the housing.
Missing in each of the §103 rejections is an explanation by
the examiner of how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
incorporated the depressible button of Koput or Ng into the
labeler of Hamisch ‘392. Furthermore, the combination of
references does not meet the requirement of these claims with
regard to a labeler having a first housing section with a
manually graspable handle and a latch on a second housing
section.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness.
With regard to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 31-38 over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,988,249
in view of Hamisch ‘392, Koput, Ng, Goodwin, Huggins, Godin,
Kapitanov, we reverse this rejection also, for the same reasons
as discussed above.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007