Avery Dennison Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

15502386 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/502,386 02/07/2017 David J. SHUEY 6046-US; AD2017000536 6639
81029 7590 06/30/2020
Avery Dennison Corporation
Wendy A. Choi
8080 Norton Parkway, 22D
Mentor, OH 44060
EXAMINER
KIM, SHIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
matsgroup_patentdocket@averydennison.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte DAVID J. SHUEY
___________________

Appeal 2020-000160
Application 15/502,386
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7, 12, 15, 17–23, 26, 31, 34, and
36–41. Final Act. 2–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avery
Dennison Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000160
Application 15/502,386

2
The claims relate to a system for securely attaching labels that provide
product information to label channels or other assemblies in stores and retail
environments. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6. We reproduce independent claim 1 below.
1. A label stiffener system comprising:
a first support defining a front face and a rear face;
a second support defining a front face and a rear face;
a layer of a first adhesive disposed between the first and the
second support; and
a patterned region of a second adhesive disposed on the front
face of the first support;
wherein the first support and the second support provide
rigidity and stability for retaining one or more labels with a label
channel or other display.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 12, 15, 17–23, 31, 34, and 36–412 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Valiulis and Whitehouse.3 Final
Act. 2–7.
II. Claims 7 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Valiulis, Whitehouse, and Elzer.4 Final Act. 7.

2 On page 2 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner lists claim 16 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Valiulis and
Whitehouse; however, claim 16 is cancelled. Appeal Br. A2 (Claims
Appx.). Consequently, claim 16 is not before us on appeal.
3 Valiulis (US 6,145,231, issued Nov. 14, 2000); Whitehouse (US 5,428,914,
issued July 4, 1995).
4 Elzer (US 3,494,056, issued Feb. 10, 1970).
Appeal 2020-000160
Application 15/502,386

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4, 12, 15, 17–23, 31, 34, and 36–41 over Valiulis and Whitehouse
The dispositive issue regarding this rejection is the rationale for the
proposed modification.
The Examiner finds that Valiulis substantially discloses the claimed
label stiffener, as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 20 and 39. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Valiulis Figs. 19–22,
24), 5, 6. However, the Examiner acknowledges that Valiulis does not teach
the claimed patterned region of a second adhesive, and relies on Whitehouse
for this limitation. See id. at 3, 5, 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Whitehouse discloses a front support having a patterned region of adhesive
(adhesive layer 26, or adhesive layer 26 and tape 30) to facilitate adhering of
a label. Id. at 3 (citing Whitehouse Figs. 1, 2), 5, 6; Ans. 3–4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Valiulis to
include Whitehouse’s adhesive on the front face of Valiulis’s first support,
because such a modification would “provide an alternative arrangement of
parts to secure a display on the support.” Final Act. 3.
The Examiner’s reason, i.e., “providing an alternate arrangement of
parts to secure a display on the support” (Final Act. 3), does not sufficiently
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Valiulis’s label
stiffener system in the manner proposed. Valiulis, for example, discloses
that an outward surface of outer lamina 243 is bonded to release layer 244.
Valiulis 8:3–8, Figs. 19, 20, 22. Release layer 244 permits a mounted label
to be removed by peeling off cleanly. Id. at 1:60–64, 5:4–12, 10:16–18
(release layer 244 is the same material as release layer 44).
Appeal 2020-000160
Application 15/502,386

4
Whitehouse, on the other hand, teaches that adhesive layer 26 and
tape 30 facilitate adhering of a label (plaque 22). Whitehouse 3:17–24, 49–
60, Figs. 1, 2.
It is unclear, and the Examiner does not sufficiently explain, why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would add Whitehouse’s adhesive, which
is designed to hold a label, to the top surface of Valiulis’s release layer,
which is designed to permit a label to be removed. Put differently, the
Examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would turn a layer
that releases a label into a layer that holds a label. Consequently, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not given a sufficient reason for the
proposed modification. Appeal Br. 10–12. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1, 20, and 39, and dependent claims 2–4, 12,
15, 17–19, 21–23, 31, 34, 36–38, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Valiulis and Whitehouse.

Claim 7 and 26 over Valiulis, Whitehouse, and Elzer
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 7 and 26
would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Valiulis,
Whitehouse, and Elzer. Final Act. 7. The Examiner cites Elzer solely for
the teaching that a display support system may include polymeric materials
from 1–7 mils thick. Id. This additional finding fails to remedy the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s rationale, as set forth above with respect to
independent claims 1 and 20, from which claims 7 and 26 depend,
respectively. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Valiulis, Whitehouse, and Elzer.

Appeal 2020-000160
Application 15/502,386

5
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 12, 15,
17–23, 31,
34, 36–41
103 Valiulis,
Whitehouse
1–4, 12, 15,
17–23, 31,
34, 36–41
7, 26 103 Valiulis,
Whitehouse,
Elzer
7, 26
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7, 12,
15, 17–23,
26, 31, 34,
36–41

REVERSED