Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
Appellants argue, on page 9 of the brief, that Newhouse does not teach a
portion of the information on the label is removable as claimed in claim 30.
We disagree with appellants. Claim 30 is dependent upon claim 29 and
further recites “wherein a portion of the information is removable.” We note that
the claim 29 does not specifically recite that the label has information, rather that
it is “adapted to receive information.” Thus, in context claim 30 recites that the
label is adapted to receive removable information. Thus claim 30 does not
actually recite that the label contains removable information provided by a user
and is broad enough to encompass a person scribbling upon the label with a
non-permanent pen or pencil. As discussed supra we find that the label of
Newhouse is so adapted. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants argue, on page 10 of the brief, that Newhouse does not teach
that the information comprises reusable alpha numerics.
We concur with appellants. In claim 31, is dependent upon claim 29 and
further recites “wherein a portion of said information comprises reusable alpha
numerics.” Thus, claim 31 recites that the label is adapted to receive reusable
alpha numerics. These alpha numerics correspond to appellants’ information
tags attached by hook and loop fasteners or hooked on slides disclosed in the
specification. We find the scope of this claim to be limited to the label receiving
reusable alpha numerics. We do not find that Newhouse teaches any structure,
which is able to receive such reusable alpha numerics. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007