Appeal 2007-0765
Application 09/817,826
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Baldwin US 4,907,904 Mar. 13, 1990
Jackson US 5,795,090 Aug. 18, 1998
Claims 2 through 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Jackson.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 6, 2004) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed May 12, 2004) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 11 and 15.
OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 17) that the Examiner "dismisses the
patentable significance of the recited 'first indicia identifying the position of
each of said labels in an interrupted sequence…' and the recited 'second
indicia corresponding to said first indicia….'" Appellant argues (Br. 17) that
the first and second indicia in independent claim 15 "are functionally related
to their respective substrates." Further, Appellant contends (Br. 18) that
neither reference discloses or suggests second indicia on a second substrate
that corresponds with first indicia on a first substrate. We agree with
Appellant.
The Examiner (Answer 4) associates Baldwin's retaining board 20 and
substrate 30 (in book 10) with the claimed first and second substrates,
respectively. The Examiner (Answer 4) refers to the labels that are "parked"
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013