Appeal No. 2005-0952
Application No. 09/908,282
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-
noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding those rejections, we refer
to the answer (mailed August 25, 2004) for the examiner’s
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (filed
June 18, 2004) for appellant’s views to the contrary.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the issues raised in this appeal has
included a careful assessment of appellant’s specification and
claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective
positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the evidence relied upon by the examiner is sufficient to support
a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to
appellant’s claims 1 through 17. Our reasoning follows.
We look first to the examiner's prior art rejection of
claims 1 through 9 and 12 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Korondi. In that regard, the examiner contends that the
label form (10) seen in Figures 1-3 of Korondi comprises a first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007