Appeal 2007-2415
Application 11/200,690
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified
Birkholz’s labels with a lenticular viewing member as taught by Sekiguchi.
Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to make the Examiner’s proposed modification because such
modification would destroy the intended function of Birkholz. The issue for
us to decide is: Has the Examiner provided a reasonable basis to conclude
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Birkholz and Sekiguchi in the manner claimed?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Birkholz discloses a plurality of labels, each comprising (a) a
sheet member having a first major surface and an opposing second major
surface, (b) a layer of moisture dissipative material applied to said
second major surface of said sheet member, and (c) a pressure sensitive
adhesive applied to said moisture dissipative layer opposite said second
major surface of said sheet member, and further comprising a common
removable liner, wherein said sheet members are each releasably
adhered to said common liner by said layer of pressure sensitive
adhesive and each of said sheet members may be removed from said
common liner and adhered to the support surface and then removed from
the support surface by dissipating said moisture dissipative layer.
(Claim 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013