Ex Parte Reed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

12483637 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/483,637 06/12/2009 Richard Frederick Reed 0004851USU/1269 9645
27623 7590 09/26/2013
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
EXAMINER
WYROZEBSKI LEE, KATARZYNA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD FREDERICK REED,
STEFAN LAWRENCE GERUM, JAMES DOBRYNSKI,
CHERYL DOYLE, and SUZANNE D. CORCORAN
____________

Appeal 2012-009105
Application 12/483,637
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A self-expiring label system, comprising:
a label having a top label surface and a bottom label surface;
a backing sheet having a top sheet surface and a bottom sheet surface;
an adhesive removably securing said bottom label surface to said top
sheet surface;
a migrating ink pattern on said bottom sheet surface; and
a plurality of lines of weakness in said backing sheet defining a
second portion of said backing sheet around said migrating ink pattern, at
Appeal 2012-009105
Application 12/483,637

2
least one of said plurality of lines of weakness comprising a cut line defining
a starting point for peeling said label away from said backing sheet in a
removal direction,
said second portion being configured to remain adhered to a first
portion of said label by separation from said backing sheet along said
plurality of lines of weakness upon peeling said label away from said
backing sheet in said removal direction when a user simultaneously grasps
said top label surface of said first portion and said bottom sheet surface of
said second portion through said cut line.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Nixon et al. (Nixon) 6,394,500 B1 May 28, 2002
Haas US 2007/0153641 A1 Jul. 5, 2007
Corcoran et al. (Corcoran) US 2006/0097055 A1 May 11, 2006

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a self-expiring label
system. A migrating ink pattern is on the bottom surface of a backing sheet,
and when a portion of the backing sheet containing the ink pattern is peeled
from another portion of the backing sheet not containing the pattern, the
label is folded such that the ink pattern adheres to an adhesive layer. The
adhesive layer activates the migrating ink pattern.
Appealed claims 1-4, 6, 7, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Haas. Claims 5 and 14-17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Nixon.
Claims 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Haas in view of Corcoran.
Appellants do not present separate, substantive arguments against the
Examiner's §103 rejections over Haas in view of Nixon and Corcoran.
Appeal 2012-009105
Application 12/483,637

3
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 18, and
19 under § 102 over Haas. The principal argument advanced by Appellants
is that Haas fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "cut line", which defines
a starting point for peeling the label away from the backing sheet, or that can
be used to simultaneously grasp the top label surface and the bottom sheet
surface through the cut line. We, like the Examiner, do not subscribe to
Appellants' position.
When Appellants' Figure 4 is compared to Haas's Figure 4A, it can be
seen that the only difference is that cut line 26 of Appellants is coplanar in
the vertical direction with the edge of the label, while the cut line of Haas is
not co-planar with the edge of the label 3. However, we agree with the
Examiner that this distinction does not prevent Haas's label from being
peeled in the same manner as the one presently claimed. Figure 4A of Haas
illustrates that the label 3 is peeled in the counter clockwise direction. But
we agree with the Examiner that the cut lines in the backing of Haas allow
for the backing sheet 5 and the label 3 to be simultaneously grasped by a
user for peeling the backing layer in the clockwise direction. It can be seen
from Appellants' Figure 5, and Haas's Figure 4B, that the same label element
results. As stated by the Examiner, "[w]hile Haas shows an exemplary
Appeal 2012-009105
Application 12/483,637

4
starting point for peeling away the label, the starting point for peeling away
the label is by no means restricted to the examples shown in the Figure of
Haas, and the start point for peeling the label of Haas could be any number
of locations" (Ans. 14, second para.).
Regarding separately argued claim 3, which calls for the cut line to be
co-planar to the bottom edge of the label, we agree with the Examiner's
position that "[w]hile the applicant may intend for the claim to mean that the
bottom edge of the label and the cut line are in the same vertical plane, the
claims do not explicitly claim this limitation – and the office [sic, Office] is
unable to read such limitations into the claim because they are not explicitly
stated" (Ans. 15, second para.). We agree with the Examiner that "the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a plane may be utilized in order to
establish whether the bottom edge of the label and the cut line in the backing
sheet are co-planar (even a diagonal plane, as opposed to a traditional
vertical or horizontal plane)" (id.). Appellants have not established that co-
planar in the vertical direction must be read into the claims to make the label
system operable in the manner claimed. Hence, it is not appropriate to read
such a limitation from the Specification into the appealed claims.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-009105
Application 12/483,637

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam