Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
that the number and size of the “bridges” employed is dependent on the label web material
(answer, page 5; see Koehlinger, e.g., col. 1, ll. 4-10, col. 2, ll. 3-7, col. 5, ll. 52-55, and col. 6,
ll. 8-32), and that Boreali would have disclosed that linerless labels are pre-cut with “ties,” that
is, “bridges,” from the matrix to provide support for processing (answer, page 5; see Boreali,
e.g., col. 1, ll. 8-58, col. 2, ll. 10-18, and col. 3, ll. 62-66).
On this factual basis, the examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led by Schumann, Koehlinger and Boreali to use micro-bridged cut linerless labels in
the method of Majkrzak in the reasonable expectation of avoiding problems of associating labels
from a web to temporary liners (answer, pages 6-7).
The examiner finds with respect to the second issue involving appealed claim 1, that
Evans would have taught that “polyolefin film-based low-release liner for temporarily
supporting and covering pressure sensitive adhesive carried by a sheet or other article can have
thickness of 1-4 mils,” that is, 0.0254 mm to 0.1016 mm, and “can be laminated to label stock”
(answer, pages 6 and 12; see Evans, e.g., col. 1, ll. 18-22 and 29-35, col. 2, l. 71, to col. 3, l. 6,
and col. 5, ll. 64-71). The examiner further finds that PFFC reports that “one of the biggest
trends in labels and liners is the use of thinner substrates” with the thickness of “1 and 1½ mil,”
that is, 0.0254 mm to 0.0381 mm, for cost reduction and environmental needs (answer, page
6; see PFFC, pages 1-2).
On this factual basis, the examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led by Evans and PFFC to use thin support liners of a polymer film having a thickness
as low as 1 mil, that is, 0.0254 mm, as the liner sheet in the method of Majkrzak in the
reasonable expectation of providing temporary support and covering pressure sensitive adhesives
carried by a liner sheet for labels to reduce costs and satisfy environmental needs (answer, page
7).
The examiner finds with respect to the issue involving appealed claim 6, that in addition
to Evans and PFFC, Nedblake would have taught that a label bearing liner can be “low cost,
lightweight . . . as opposed to heavier webs,” that is, the liner webs can be “on the order of
0.75 mil (0.019 mm) . . . as compared to conventional liner webs of thickness of 2-3 mils,” that
is, 0.0508 mm to 0.07620 mm (answer, page 8; see Nedblake, e.g., col. 1. ll. 7-24, col. 2,
ll. 3-18 and 53-60, col. 3, ll. 46-52, col. 3, l. 66, to col. 4, l. 11, and col. 4, ll. 21-38). On this
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007