BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a garment label having an electronic artic le
surveillance (EAS) or radio frequency identifica tion device (RFID) marker disposed in a
pocket therein and to a method of making such a label. A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Humble US 4,254,868 Mar. 10, 1981
Frowein (Frowein ‘514) US 5,624,514 Apr. 29, 1997
Frowein (Frowein ‘087) US 5,896,087 Apr. 20, 1999
Senior US 6,019,540 Feb. 1, 2000
Kolton US 6,724,311 B1 Apr. 20, 2004
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Frowein ‘087.
Claims 27-29, 31 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frowein ‘087 in view of Kolton.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Frowein ‘087 in view of Senior.
Claims 32-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514 and Humble.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514, Humble and Senior.
Claims 27-31 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514, Humble and Kolton.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007