Appeal 2006-2929
Application 10/859,030
between the lower layer 6 and the adhesive layer 7 can be achieved either by
choice of material for the lower layer 6 or by applying an appropriate
coating to the lower layer 6 (Hofer, col. 3, ll. 33-37). Moreover, as
illustrated in Fig. 6, Hofer discloses forming a plurality of bracelets in a
continuous web separated by a plurality of perforations 16 and notches 17
(Hofer, col. 3, ll. 61-64).
While the Examiner is correct that Hofer evidences that it was known
at the time of Appellants’ invention to attach bracelets having an adhesive
covered by a release liner end to end (Answer 3), Hofer also expressly
discloses separating such bracelets by both perforations and notches. Hofer
gives no hint or suggestion that it would be desirable to form cuts or
perforations in the lower layer, or release layer, so that the lower layer of
one bracelet overlaps with the upper layer and adhesive layer of the adjacent
bracelet as called for in Appellants’ claims. Further, as pointed out by
Appellants (Br. 13), neither Amann nor Hofer evidences appreciation of the
problem solved by Appellants’ invention, namely, the problem of
discardable release liners or removable sections traditionally associated with
identification bracelets. Accordingly, Hofer would not have provided any
suggestion to utilize the manufacturing technique of Amann to form
identification bracelets of the type disclosed by Hofer to arrive at the subject
matter recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 27 and 44, absent
hindsight gleaned from Appellants’ disclosure.
In light of the above, we conclude that the combined teachings of
Amann and Hofer would not have suggested modifying Amann by making
the labels/markers in the form of bracelets. The rejection of independent
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013