Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
Rejection of claims 23, 25 through 28 and 35
Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, that Newhouse does not teach
that the “ bezel portion is removable without removing said label from said
equipment” as recited in claim 23. Appellants reason that Newhouse’s holder,
item 12, which the examiner equates with the claimed bezel can not be removed
without removing the label from the chair on which it is attached, which the
examiner equates with the claimed equipment.
The examiner responds on page 6 of the answer:
[T]he bezel is not actually part of the claimed invention. The invention is
the label. Applicant’s discussion of the bezel describes the intended use
of the label. The label in Newhouse is capable of being used in that
manner. Arguments regarding the bezel of Newhouse not being
removable without removing the label are narrower than the instant claim
language.
We disagree with the examiner’s claim interpretation. We consider the claim
to be awkward as it recites “ A label … said label comprising… wherein said bezel
portion …”, the bezel is not disclosed as being part of the part of the label, but
rather the equipment on which the label is mounted and we accordingly enter a new
ground of rejection 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Nonetheless, claim 23
does recite that the equipment upon which the label is mounted contains a bezel
from which the label can be pulled out of and that the bezel is removable without
removing the label from the equipment. We do not find that Newhouse teaches a
bezel, which is removable without removing the label from the equipment, the chair.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 23,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007