Appeal No. 2006-0785
Application No. 09/683,531
Appellant also argues that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Bloch and Albert because Albert does not teach an
addressable display having the claimed features and because
Albert relates to a different problem from the claimed invention
[reply brief, pages 2-6].
With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection. We are not persuaded by appellant’s
argument that Bloch fails to teach or suggest a display device
used as a label. Even though neither the examiner nor appellant
has specifically defined what is meant by the term “label,” it is
clear that they disagree on whether the display taught by Bloch
can be considered to be a label within the meaning of the claims.
Bloch indicates that his invention is intended to overcome the
shortcomings of conventional adhesive labels [column 1, lines 57-
58]. Thus, the display disclosed by Bloch replaces the
conventional adhesive label. We agree with the examiner that the
display of Bloch can be called a label within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of that term because the display
indicates the contents of the disk to which it is attached. We
also note that Bloch teaches that the disclosed display mechanism
“could be mounted ... on an adhesive-backed device,... and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007