COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
SECTION 36(2) - Labelling Apparatus
The invention is directed to a hand-held label printing and applying apparatus
for pressure sensitive labels carried on a web or supporting material. Amended
claims were accepted which overcome the Section 36 rejection.
Final Action: Affirmed
*****************
Patent application 281,733 (Class 101-29), was filed on June 30, 1977,
for an invention entitled "Label Printing And Applying Apparatus." The
inventor is William A. Jenkins, assignor to Monarch Marking Systems, Inc.
The Examiner in charge of the application took a Final Action on July 11,
1978, refusing to allow it to proceed to patent. In reviewing the reject-
ion, the Patent Appeal Board held a Hearing on December 12, 1979, at which
the Applicant was represented by Mr. E. O'Connor. Also in attendance
were Mr. J. Grass, United States Patent Attorney and Mr. Hamisch from the
Parent Company.
Patent application 281,733 is directed to a hand-held label printing and
applying apparatus for printing and applying pressure sensitive labels carried
on a web of supporting material.
In the Final Action the Examiner refused claims 1, 6 and 9 in view of United
States patent 3,440,123, dated April 22, 1969, to Hamisch, and for failure
of these claims to comply with Section 36(2) of the Patent Act.
In response to the Final Action the Applicant argued that the refused claims
were not open to the objections made by the Examiner.
At the Hearing, Mr. O'Connor discussed the problem of claiming faced
by the Applicant. It was soon clear that the root of the trouble was related
to Section 36(2) of the Patent Act. After some discussion, a clarifying
amendment to overcome the problem was suggested by Mr. Grass. The amendment
consisted of adding to claim 1, the only independent claim, the following:
".., and means coupling the print head moving means and the feed wheel.''
The proposed amendment was taken under consideration and after due
deliberation Mr. O'Connor was informed by telephone that it would be accept-
able. This amendment essentially ties the movement of the print head to the
feed wheel, thus avoiding an ambiguous situation and satisfying Section 36(2)
of the Patent Act.
On January 14, 1980, a voluntary amendment was submitted cancelling all of
the claims and replacing them by new claims 1 to 17.
The amended claims clearly overcome the objections raised in the Final
Action. No further discussion is therefore necessary.
J.F. Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I concur with the reasoning and findings of the Board. The application is
returned to the Examiner for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 20th. day of February,1980
Agent for Applicant
Scott & Aylen
170 Laurier Ave. W.
Ottawa, Ont.
K1P 5V5