Appeal 2007-0765
Application 09/817,826
on board 20 (see col. 2, ll. 64-66) as the labels adhered to the first substrate.
The Examiner asserts (Answer 5) that "Baldwin discloses the claimed
invention except for the specific arrangement and/or content of indicia . . .
set forth in the claim(s)." The Examiner concludes (Answer 5) that
providing the claimed indicia would have been obvious "since it would only
depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to
be displayed." The Examiner further characterizes the indicia as printed
matter that is not functionally related to the substrate and, therefore, asserts
that it cannot distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of
patentability.
Claim 15, in pertinent part, recites "each of said labels having one of a
series of first indicia identifying the position of each of said labels in an
uninterrupted sequence" and "a plurality of label-retaining spaces and a
series of second indicia, said second indicia corresponding to said first
indicia to associate each one of said spaces with a respective corresponding
one of said labels according to said sequence." The indicia define the
locations of the labels on the substrates and function to maintain the
chronological order in which the labels were used. The indicia are very
much functionally related to the labels and the substrates. Thus, the
Examiner erred in characterizing the indicia as non-functional descriptive
matter.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts (Answer 6) that Jackson discloses
first indicia identifying the position of each label in an uninterrupted
sequence. The Examiner, however, points to nothing that would suggest
corresponding second indicia. Further, we find no reason why one would
use first and second indicia as recited in the claims in the address book of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013