Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
accomplished by “cutting” the stock with, for example, lifting punches, rotary cutting rollers and
laser beams, wherein the cutting edge of cutting devices, other than laser beams, has “one or
more interruptions, for example, notches” which can be controlled to obtain the desired pattern
for controlling dispensing of the label (Schumann ‘983, e.g., col. 1, 32-56, col. 2, ll. 21-60, col.
2, l. 61, to col. 3, l. 38, col. 3, l. 57, to col. 4, l. 25, and col. 5, ll. 31-45, describing FIG. 7).
Thus, the reference establishes a method wherein only the label layer is cut and then only
partially severed. We fail to find in the passage of Schumann relied on by appellants the
“problem” of the “inability to precisely control the thickness of the cut” as they argue (see above
p. 7). This is because Schumann would have taught in this entire passage how the problem,
which occurs “in rare cases,” can be overcome by the design of the “cutting edge” (Schumann
‘983, e.g., col. 4, ll. 23-25). Thus, Schumann contains no teaching which would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art away from using the “punch” cutting means as implied by appellants’
argument. Indeed, even if this was so, Schumann still would have taught the use of laser beams
for the same purpose.
Furthermore, we agree with appellants that Schumann would have disclosed “multiple
layers” (see above p. 6) because the flat form label stock that can be used in the methods of this
reference has at least two layers. However, we cannot agree with appellants that Koehlinger
discloses “multiple layers” because appellants have not cited to the reference in support of their
finding and we fail to find such a construct in the references. We find that Koehlinger would
have taught at col. 4, l. 6 et seq., that a web of label stock is printed on one surface before or
after it is cut to form bridge(s), and thereafter an adhesive is applied to the other surface, thus
disclosing a single layer label web sheet.
In any event, appellants do not argue the teachings of Boreali which we find would have
disclosed the use of “ties” or bridges in cut linerless label stock, thus alone establishing that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have micro-bridge cut linerless label stock.
Thus, we find that the examiner correctly determines that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have used the methods of the combined teachings of Schumann, Koehlinger and Boreali
to partially sever the individual labels in the continuous linerless label sheet in the method of
Majkrzak. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into
- 11 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007