Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
with respect to claims 6 and 20 to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed
invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established
by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based
on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the
brief and the testimonial evidence in the Pace declaration4 to the extent that it is relied on in the
brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner finds, and we agree, that Majkrzak would have disclosed to one of ordinary
skill in this art a method of applying linerless labels to a substrate through a linered label
applicator by feeding a composite of a linerless label, precut, that is, die-cut, from a sheet
consisting essentially of a linerless label, associated with a roll of temporary liner sheet into the
linered label applicator where the linered label is normally directed into said linered label
applicator, thus differing from the claimed method encompassed by appealed independent claim
1 in not teaching that (1) the label is micro-bridge cut along a border thereof with the sheet, and
(2) the temporary liner sheet consisting essentially of a sheet of less than 0.032 mm, that is, less
than 1.259 mil, and from the claimed method encompassed by appealed claim 6, dependent on
claim 1, in not teaching that the temporary liner consists essentially of a polymer film of less
than 0.025 mm, that is, less than 0.984 mil (answer, e.g., pages 5-6, 8 and 9-10).
The examiner finds with respect to the first issue involving appealed claim 1, that
Schumann would have taught that a “bridge” along the border of a label in a flat form web
matrix, should be punched or cut such that at least one “bridge,” depending on the material,
connects the label to the flat form web with sufficient support to enable the controlled transport
or association of the label to a temporary web (answer, page 5; see Schumann ‘983, e.g., col. 1,
ll. 4-9 and 37-47, col. 2, ll. 21-27, 30-35 and 47-60, col. 2, l. 61, to col. 3, l. 43, and col. 4,
ll. 2-25). The examiner further finds that, in similar manner, Koehlinger would have disclosed
March 30, 2004 (page 5)), which finding is not disputed by appellants. We refer to Schumann
‘983 in our opinion.
4 The Declaration of Mr. Raymond Pace, executed June 30, 2004, was submitted with the
amendment filed July 2, 2004, and entered and considered by the examiner in the advisory action
mailed July 19, 2004.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007