Appeal 2006-2929
Application 10/859,030
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13,
25-27, 29-31, 33, 34, and 44-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amann in view of Hofer.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed March 10, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Brief (filed February 2, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed May 2, 2006).
OPINION
The Examiner finds that “Amann does not disclose making the
labels/markers in the form of bracelets” (Answer 3)1 as called for in each of
Appellants’ independent claims 1, 27, and 44. The Examiner contends,
however, that, in view of the teachings of Hofer, it would have been obvious
“to modify Amann by making the labels/markers in the form of bracelets
since this would allow the labels/markers to be attached to a person in a
more convenient manner, would allow bracelets to be made in an easier and
less expensive manner, and would allow the devices to be used in a wider
range of areas” (Answer 3).
Appellants argue there is absolutely no suggestion or motivation to
make the combination proposed by the Examiner, other than hindsight
gleaned from the invention itself (Br. 12). Accordingly, the issue presented
to us is whether the combined teachings of Amann and Hofer would have
1 Even assuming that Amann’s articles could be considered “identification
bracelets” within the context of Appellants’ invention, they do not
necessarily appear capable, without modification, of the use recited in the
“whereby …” clause at the end of each of Appellants’ independent claims
without the layers de-laminating.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013