Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
microbridge cutting,” pointing out that the reference is “limited to laser cutting as an enabling
cutting step, and does not teach microbridging” (id., pages 19).
Finally, appellants contend that the Pace declaration “provides evidence that one with
executive knowledge in the art is unaware of any products that provide thin (less than 0.5 mil)
liners with any label products and particularly not with linerless label products,” and that
“declarant recognizes the technical difficulties in providing such thin liners on labels and
indicates his belief that only through the combination of steps” in the claimed process are
“quality thin (less than or equal to 0.05 mils) liners . . . applied to labels” (brief, page 19).
The examiner responds that, with respect to appellants’ argument that Majkrzak “does
not teach border cutting before association with a liner,” the reference would have taught one of
ordinary skill in this art to “partially sever individual labels on a continuous sheet (i.e., linerless
stock” and then “apply the continuous sheet with its partially severed labels to a temporary,
reusable support (i.e., liner),” citing page 11, ll. 1-7, and page 11, l. 30, to page 12, l. 4, but “does
not . . . mention using microbridges” (answer, page 10). The examiner argues that Schumann
would have taught that a partially severed, “bridged” border cut holds the label within the sheet
until it is dispensed, thus avoiding dispensing problems during label application, and that this
reference along with Koehlinger teach that partially severed labels in a continuous web (answer,
pages 10-11).
The examiner further argues that “Evans and [PFFC] would have suggested the use of “a
liner of thickness within the range of less than 0.032 mm (1.26 mil), as claimed” (answer, page
12). In this respect, the examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a
polymer film “liner as thin as 1 mil (0.025 mm)” taught by the combination of Evans and PFFC
as a release liner with the motivation to reduce costs as taught by PFFC, which thickness falls
within appealed claim 1 (answer, pages 12-13). The examiner further argues that Nedblake
clearly would have suggested the use of a “liner as thin as 0.75 mil (0.019 mm)” for material
savings compared to thicker conventional liners, and uses a laser to cut the label while it is
separated from the liner, the thickness of the thinnest liner disclosed by the reference falling
5 Appellants argue the “AWA article” they identify as a “new” reference cited in the final Office
action (brief, page 15). It is clear from appellants’ argument and the record that PFFC is that
“article.”
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007