enclos ure by tab 23. A post 39 projects upwardly from the platform 37 and is tapered at
40 so that upon movement of the implement through the side wall of the enclosure the
post 39 will slide under the tag 12 until it registers with and enters an aperture 41
provided in the tag 12. The tag can then be extracted from the enclosure with the
im plement.
Frowein ‘087, Frowein ‘514 and Humble are directed to three different types of
devices for securin g an antitheft alarm tripping ma rker to an article and, in light of their
disparate approaches and structures, we find no suggestion in the applied references to
combine them as proposed by the examiner. Specifically, while Frowein ‘087 and
Frowein ‘514 are both directed to fabric labels, Frowein ‘087 provides an open-pocket
arrangement with a folded-over insertion n ‘514 provides a fuloop and Frowei lly-
enclosed pocket. One skilled in the art view ing the teachings of the two Frowein patents
in combination would have selected one or the other of the two arrangements and would
have found no suggestion to modify Frowein ‘087 to provide a closed pocket with a slit.
Humble is directed not to a fabric label but to a tough tear resistant plastic enclosure for a
security tag, the enclosure being adapted for adhesive attachm ent to an article, and thus
would not have provided any suggestion for modification of a fabric label. In light of the
above, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 32-37 as being unpatentable over
Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514 and Humble.
The examiner’s application of Senior and Kolton provides no cure for the
deficiency of the combination of Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514 and Humble
discussed above. It follows that the rejections of claim 39 as being unpatentable over
Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514, Humble and Senior and claims 27-31 and 40 as
being unpatentable over Frowein ‘087 in view of Frowein ‘514, Humble and Kolton are
also not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007