Appeal 2007-2897
Application 09/934,777
by Kitagawa and Williams with repeating designation indicia as
taught by Okisawa to provide a means to further define the destination
of the box/package and as a means to provide the indicia extending
over the entire length of the tape so that the tape would covey the
same message over the length of the tape.
(Answer 5-6.)
The Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case
of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Kitagawa discloses a process of
sealing a box with tape. We have discussed the teachings of Williams and
Okisawa (see supra, at pp. 4-6).
Appellant argues that Kitagawa does not overcome the shortcomings of
Okisawa. (Br. 16.) For the reasons discussed previously, we have found no
shortcomings in the combination of Williams and Okisawa. The obviousness
rejection is affirmed.
Claims 6-8 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
obviousness over Plummer in view of Williams. We select claim 6 as
representative of this rejection as Appellant has not provided separate argument for
other claims. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that
Plummer teaches a gang tape dispenser 10 for a multiplicity of
dissimilar rolls of pressure sensitive tape 51 selectively usable at the
user option. Each roll may bear repeated distinctive symbols and/or
color dissimilar from those on the other rolls enabling the user to
employ the strip alone or in combination for coding and/or identifying
articles. Although the drawings show numeric indicia on the tape
rolls, Plummer teaches that other symbols or combination of symbols
may be disposed on the different tape rolls. Plummer also teaches that
the rolls may be distinguished from one anther [sic.] by various other
means as by different colors, letters or symbols as well as by various
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013