February 24, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and
to the appellants’ brief (filed January 23, 2006) and reply brief (filed March 14, 2006) for
the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the following determinations.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of independent claim 36, which requires
forming a label material into a pocket having a wall and inserting a detectable EAS o r
RFID marker through the wall into the inside of the pocket, and claim 37, which de pends
from claim 36, as being anticipated by Frowein ‘087. As illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 o f
Frowein ‘087 and explained in column 3, lines 42-55, the alarm tripping device 10 is
inserted in the direction of arrow 20 into a pocket 22 provided between an upper layer 23
and a layer 24 of the label 11 facing the product. The pocket 22 is closed by forcing the
layer 24 of the label 11 past a short loop 25 of the upper layer 23 into the hollow space of
the pocket 22 so that subsequently the layer 24 is prevented from slipping out by the
protruding loop 25.
The alarm tripping device 10 of Frowein ‘087 is inserted into the pocket 22
through an open end of the pocket that is subsequently closed by forcing the layer 24 past
the loop 25 of the upper layer 23. The device is not inserted through the wall of the
pocket as called for in claim 36. If the loop 25 and layer 24 were considered togethe r to
form a wall, as urged by the examiner on page 7 of the answer, a position which is
tenable only when the layer 24 is tucked under the loop 25, as illustrated in F igure 2,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007