Appeal No. 2005-2131
Application 10/000,254
find that Nedblake would have disclosed a process using “preprinted continuous label-bearing
webs using laser cutting techniques . . . employing low-cost, lightweight liners as opposed to the
relatively thick and more costly liners conventionally used[,] . . . wherein a preprinted label
bearing web is separated from its liner, laser cut . . . to generate individual cut labels, whereupon
the individual labels are reapplied either to the original liner or a secondary liner web” (col. 1,
ll. 7-24; see also col., 2, ll. 3-18 and 53-60). Nedblake further would have disclosed that the
“low-cost, very thin liner web 24” can be either the original liner or the secondary liner, either
liner having the thickness of 0.75 mil, that is, 0.019 mm, with which the process using a laser
“allows run speeds of 500 ft/min. or more” (e.g., col. 3, ll. 46-52, and col. 3, l. 66, to col. 4,
l. 38). Thus, as the examiner finds, Nedblake uses a laser to cut the label from the web while it
is in fact linerless, which is then combined with a temporary thin liner that is either the original
thin liner or a secondary thin liner to form a composite.
In view of the teachings of bridge cuts in the label layer in Schumann, which teaches
punch cutters and lasers, and the teachings of bridge cuts in linerless labels in Koehlinger and
Boreali, we find that the examiner has properly determined that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have used the methods of the combined teachings of Schumann, Koehlinger and Boreali
with the thin liners of the combined teachings of PFFC and Evans with respect to claim 1, and
with the thin liners of the combined teachings of PFFC, Evans and Nedblake with respect to
appealed claim 6, in the reasonable expectation of providing a composite of micro-bridged
linerless labels and thin temporary liner sheet that can be used in the method of Majkrzak.
We are not persuaded otherwise by appellants’ arguments based on the alleged problems
associated with micro-bridge cutting linerless labels and combining the same with temporary
liner sheet having the claimed thicknesses. We find no objective evidence in the record,
including the testimonial evidence in the Pace declaration, which supports appellants’ arguments
in these respects, and appellants do not cite to such evidence other than the Pace declaration.
Indeed, the Pace declaration sets forth no objective evidence in support of declarant Pace’s “best
professional belief” based on “liners as thin as or thinner than 0.5 mils,” that is, 0.0127 (¶¶ 6-8),
which, as the examiner finds, is twice as thin as the upper end of the ranges in appealed claims
1 and 6, and indeed, does not reflect the teachings of the references in which the liners can be as
thin as 0.75 mils, that is, 0.019 mm. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007