Ex Parte Chamandy et al - Page 5




             there is no indication that the device 10 could be inserted into the space fo rmed between            
             the loop 25 and the layer 24.  In any event, Frowein ‘087 does not disclos   e insertion of          
             the device 10with the layer 24 tucked under the loop 25; rather, as illustra ted in Figure 3,        
             Frowein disc loses insertion of the device 10 through the open end of the pock   et with the         
             layer 24 disposed outside of the loop 25.                                                            
                    As discussed above, Frowein ‘087 does not disclose a step of inserting   the marker           
             into the pocket of the label through the wall of the pocket as called for in claim 36.  It           
             thus follows that we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 36 or claim 37 depe   nding from          
             claim 36 as being anticipated by Frowein ‘087.                                                       
                    The rejections of claim 40 as being unpatentable over Frowein ‘087 in v    iew of             
             Kolton and c laim 39 as being unpatentable over Frowein ‘087 in view of S     enior both rest        
             in part on theexaminer's finding that Frowein ‘087 discloses a step of insertin   g the               
             marker throu gh the wall of the pocket.  The above discussed lack of su   pport in Frowein           
             ‘087 for thisfinding, which deficiency finds no remedy in the examiner’s ap     plication of         
             Kolton or Se nior, fatally taints the examiner's conclusion that the differencesbetween the          
             subject matter recited in claims 39 and 40 dependent on claim 36 and the p    rior art are           
             such that thesubject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the     time the invention         
             was made to  a person having ordinary skill in the art.                                              
                    We al so cannot sustain the rejection of claims 27-29 and 31 as being  unpatentable           
             over Frowein ‘087 in view of Kol   ton.  As discussed above, Frowein ‘087 discloses                  
             insertion of the alarm tripping device 10 into the pocket, as illustrated in Figure 3,               
             through the open end of the pocket 22 between the loop 25 of upper layer 23 and layer                
             24, when the layer 24 is not tucked under the loop 25.  Such open end is not a slit spac  ed         
             from closed ends, as called for in claims 27-29 and 31.  There is no indication in Frowein           
             ‘087 that the device 10 is insertable through the space formed between the loop 25    and            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007