Ex Parte Plummer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2010

11187718 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SEAN A. PLUMMER
__________

Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Gollon2 and Egan.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a jewelry tag method.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative.
11. A jewelry tag method comprising the steps of:

providing a substrate having a release liner, an adhesive
and a face stock;

die cutting a jewelry tag from said face stock so that said
jewelry tag has a label, a flap and a shank, said label having a
plurality of print sections, said flap extending from at least one
of said print sections, said shank extending from at least one of
said print sections;

removing said jewelry tag from the remainder of said
face stock and from said release liner so that said adhesive
adheres to said jewelry tag;

encircling a portion of a jewelry article with said shank;

adhering together said print sections so as to secure said
shank to said jewelry article; and

laminating at least one of said print sections with said
flap.

2 US 4,865,352 to Gollon, issued September 12, 1989.
3 US 4,568,403 to Egan, issued February 4, 1986.
Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

3
Appeal Brief dated February 2, 2009 (“App. Br.”), Claims Appendix
(emphasis added).
B. ISSUE
The Examiner contends that Gollon discloses a method for forming a
jewelry tag including the step of laminating at least one of the print sections
with a flap, as recited in claim 11. Examiner’s Answer dated May 5, 2009
(“Ans.”), at 3. In particular, the Examiner contends that flap 14a of Gollon
is laminated to the print section 12a. Ans. 9.
The Appellant, on the other hand, contends that Gollon does not
disclose this laminating step. App. Br. 6.
Thus, the sole issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Gollon discloses the
laminating step recited in claim 11?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification
The Appellant’s Figures 4A-C, reproduced below, illustrate a jewelry
tag in unattached (Fig. 4A), attached (Fig. 4B), and laminated (Fig. 4C)
positions. Spec., para. [0012].

Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

4

Appellant’s Figures 4A-C depict a
self-laminating jewelry tag.

Figure 4B shows a rat tail 20 (used for encircling a portion of an
article) bent back on itself so that the tip 22 adheres to the adhesive side 14
of the label 10. The second section 16 folds over the rat tail tip 22 and
against the first section 15 along the adhesive side 14 so that the label 10
adheres to itself and to the rat tail 20. In this manner, the label sections 15,
16 fixedly secure the rat tail 20 in a loop 25 and the label 10 forms facing
print surfaces 41, 42. Spec., para. [0026].
Figure 4C shows the flap 30 folded over the second section 16, so that
the adhesive side 14 of the flap 30 adheres to the print surface 42 of the
second section 16. In this manner, the flap 30 is said to laminate and protect
the print surface 42. Spec., para. [0027].
2. Gollon
Gollon Figures 4 and 5, reproduced below, illustrate an embodiment
of the disclosed tag. Gollon 5:4-7.
Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

5

Gollon Figure 4 depicts a tag in an
unfolded, printable condition.

Gollon Figure 5 depicts a tag in a
folded or assembled position.

The Examiner found that the tag comprises a plurality of print
sections (10a, 12a), a flap (14a) that extends from at least one of the print
sections, and a shank (22a) that extends from at least one of the print
sections. Ans. 3.
Gollon explains:
As shown in FIG. 5, when the segment connector 24a is
folded by flexing, the front surfaces 18a, 20a of the second and
third segments [12a, 14a] are juxtaposed. Flexing the strap
segment connector 22a by folding juxtaposes back surfaces of
the first and second segments 10a, 12a. Adhesive 30a on the
back surface of one of at least one of the first and second
segments [10a, 12a] holds their back surfaces together, thereby
keeping the segment connector 22a closed. . . .

Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

6
[A]dhesive 30a on the back surface of the first segment 10a
will adhere to the front surface 20a of the third segment [14a] at
the cut corners at 49 . . . .

Gollon 6:34-54.
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, “the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Judges are free to consult dictionaries when construing claim terms,
so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found
in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
E. ANALYSIS
Claim 11 recites the step of “laminating at least one of said print
sections with said flap.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. In other words, the
flap laminates at least one of the print sections.
The Appellants do not expressly define the term “laminate” or
“laminating” in the Specification. Thus, we turn to Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary (Henry Bosley Woolf et al. eds., 1977) for guidance.
Webster’s at 645, defines “laminate” as “to make by uniting superposed
layers of one or more materials” (copy attached). This definition is
Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

7
consistent with the Appellant’s use of the term “laminates” in the
Specification.4 See, e.g., Spec., para. [0027].
The Examiner contends that flap 14a of Gollon laminates at least one
of the print sections 10a and 12a. Ans. 3.
We disagree. Gollon discloses that print sections 10a and/or 12a
rather than flap 14a are coated with adhesive. Gollon 6:38-42. Thus, flap
14a does not include any adhesive with which to laminate or unite
superposed print sections 12a and 10a. Moreover, flap 14a is adhered to
print section 10a via adhesive at the cut corners 49 of print section 12a.
Thus, it does not appear that flap 14a is even adhered to adjacent print
section 12a. For this additional reason, flap 14a cannot be said to laminate
superposed print section 12a.
In sum, we find that Gollon does not disclose the laminating step
recited in claim 11. The Examiner does not explain how the teachings of
Egan cure the deficiencies of Gollon. Thus, the § 103(a) rejection on appeal
will be reversed.
F. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

4 The Examiner correctly points out that the claims on appeal do not require
the flap to be “clear.” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-000179
Application 11/187,718

8

kmm

LAW OFFICE OF GLENN R. SMITH
28626 BROOKHILL ROAD
TRABUCO CANYON, CA 92679-1163