Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
factual basis, the examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
by Evans, PFFC and Nedblake to use thin support liners of a polymer film having a thickness as
low as 0.75 mil, that is, 0.019 mm, as the liner sheet in the method of Majkrzak in the reasonable
expectation of providing a low cost, lightweight liner instead of heavier stock for material cost
savings (answer, page 8).
Appellants point out that “the linerless label is cut and separated from the matrix” in the
method of Majkrzak, and there is no suggestion in the combined teachings of the references
applied to appealed claim 1 that a micro-bridged cut border “would enable the high speed
application of linerless label stock with an ultrathin liner in a commercial process” (brief, pages
12-13). Appellants submit that in an “automated apparatus, it is essential that surfaces and
combinations of layers provide uniform thicknesses and the absence of wrinkles . . . [which]
capability has never been before provided on linerless label stock with ultrathin liners,” arguing
that “the liner is so thin, it is highly flexible, subject to wrinkling, and does not provide physical
support to the label” as well as being “substantially weaker than industry standard liners and tend
to break on standard label applicators when used with traditional cutting means” (id., pages
13-14). In this respect, appellants contend that Schumann and Koehlinger “used individual
‘thin’ layers by combining multiple layers (e.g., the stiffening layers and then adhesively
securing the stiffened polymer layers) to provide a label material that could be used,” and thus,
there is “[n]o recognition of the use of thin liner material” in the references (id., page 14).
Appellants argue that the liners of “the references in this rejection” are not encompassed by
appealed claim 1 because of the language “a roll of temporary liner sheet consisting essentially
of a sheet of less than 0.032mm in thickness” which “excludes the artificial use of ‘thin’ layers
by adding other layers thereto” (id.; original emphasis deleted).
Appellants submit argument stated to be based on a particular quoted passage in
Schumann with respect to “Figure 7 on pages 5 and 6 of the reference” (brief, page 14). The
quoted passage appears to be a translation of all but the last sentence of the first full paragraph
on page 7 of Schumann. We cannot find in the record a translation which corresponds to that
quoted by appellants. In this respect, we will consider appellants’ arguments as if they were
based on the corresponding disclosure in Schumann ‘983, at col. 4, ll. 14-25, and the description
of Schumann Fig. 7 as described at Schumann ‘983, col. 5, ll. 32-45. We note again here that the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007