Ex parte BOSCH

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2000

08839984 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL C. BOSCH
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before PATE, NASE, and JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-
14. These are the only claims in the application.
The claimed invention is directed to a securement strip
for use with a business or courtesy card. The securement
strip is used to place the business card on a door or wall.
The securement strip has one band of repositionable adhesive
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
2
on its back and another band of reposisitionable adhesive on
the front. The securement strip also includes a courtesy or
informational message, which is not obscured by the card when
the card is in place on the front repositionable adhesive.
The claimed invention may be further understood with
reference to the appealed claims appended to appellant's
brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Williams et al. (Williams) 5,282,649 Feb. 1,
1994
Johnstun 4,191,405 Mar. 4,
1980
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over Williams in view of Johnstun. For the full
details of the examiner's rejection, reference is made to the
rejection set forth in the final office action (Paper No. 9).
OPINION
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
3
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the determination
that the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claims 1-14. Therefore
the rejection on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Williams
discloses a securement strip with a first band of
repositionable adhesive on the back and a removable sticker of
an informational nature on the front and adhered to the
repositionable securement strip. Williams differs from the
invention on appeal in that the sticker on the front is not a
business card, and the sticker on the front has repositionable
adhesive on the back there of, instead of being secured to the
securement strip by a band of adhesive on the securement
strip itself.
Johnstun discloses a manifold used for copying indicia on
compressed shrinkable sleeves used to identify wiring. The
manifold contains flattened shrinkable sleeves with a carbon
paper-like front layer. The front layer and the shrinkable
sleeves are adhered to the back layer of the manifold by
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
4
repositionable adhesive which coats the back layer. The
entire manifold is placed in the typewriter which impacts the
carbon
paper-like front layer and leaves an indicia on the compressed
sleeves. At any time the front layer can be gently peeled
from the back layer and one or several sleeves removed
therefrom.
According to the examiner, Johnstun is relied upon for
teaching repositionable adhesive on the front side of the
sheet for removably securing another member. In the
examiners' view, it would have been obvious to modify the
sheet of Williams to have the repositionable adhesive on the
front side of the sheet as opposed to on the card of Williams
as taught by Johnstun. We do not agree with the examiner. In
our view, it would not have been obvious to modify Williams in
such a manner, because the function of Williams would be
destroyed. More specifically, if the adhesive in Williams
were not disposed on the sticker or smaller second sheet, then
the sticker would not adhere to the telephone. As Williams
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
5
makes clear, the purpose of the combination of Williams is to
provide a sticker that can be placed on or near a phone. If
the adhesive were supplied on the first sheet of Williams then
the sticker or smaller sheet would become readily misplaced or
lost, obviating the purpose of the
Williams' invention. For this reason, is to our view that it
would not have been obvious to place the adhesive on the
repositionable securement strip of Williams rather than on the
smaller sticker. The rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. PATE, III1 )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
6
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/839,984
7
DAVID A. LINGBECK
7120 West 26th Street, #2
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57106
Leticia
Appeal No. 2000-1275
Application No. 08/889,984
APJ PATE
APJ BAHR, JENNIFER
APJ NASE
DECISION:
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: June 7, 2001
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT