Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
examiner has relied on Schumann ‘193 as a translation in the Office actions and the answer,
which position is not disputed by appellants (see above note 3).
Appellants contend that “problems arise in the use of liners and particularly thin liners as
[claimed] . . . in the cutting of labels,” pointing out that Majkrzak “cuts the label from the
supporting matrix and removes the label from the matrix before applying it to a liner” and
Schumann “cuts the label while it is on the temporary carrier” (brief, page 14). Appellants
further contend with respect to the cited portion of Schumann and Schumann Fig. 7, that “[t]he
problem attempted to be addressed by this disclosure is the inability to precisely control the
thickness of the cut so that it would pass completely through the label layer (and not leave partial
cuts between the bridges), yet not cut the liner layer” such that “any cutting contact would
damage a significant portion of the thickness of . . . [a thin] liner, and almost any significant
contact with the cutter would shift or wrinkle the thin liner . . . [which] would tear the release
liner, causing adhesive to ooze through the back of the adjacent substrate in a wound up roll”
(id., pages 14-15).
Appellants submit that PFFC5 “is the classic reference cited for a technical wish or
objective, without any disclosure that enables attainment of that objective, recognizing the
difficulties and problems in obtaining that objective” (id., pages 15-16). Appellants argue that
this reference is non-enabling, pointing out that “one of the ‘objectives’” of the claimed
invention is “a thinner liner,” contending that “[i]t was found that any attempt to use a thinner
liner suffered from the immediate effects of wrinkling and partial separation of the liner from the
label” and “[t]here is no suggestion in the art that the use of microbridging with thin liners in a
system with precutting of the liner and subsequent application to linerless label . . . would
overcome these problems” (id., pages 16-17; original emphasis deleted). Appellants additionally
contend that “the precutting of the label allows its application to an ultrathin label that is of
lower cost than normal label liner” (id., pages 17-18).
Appellants further contend that the teachings of thinner liners in Nedblake “is not done
with linerless label (and no reason is provided for using linerless label) and is not done with
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007