Appeal No. 1997-1516
Application No. 08/326,501
sustained the examiner's rejection of claim 1 over Hosoda,
taken alone, it follows that we will also sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-10 over Hosoda in view
of Fagan. Also, since Fagan does not remedy the1
aforementioned deficiency of Hosoda to teach or suggest a
silicone coating layer located on the polypropylene layer, as
required by appealed claim 2, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 2 over Hosoda in view of Fagan.
Finally, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-10 under § 103 over Keeling in view of Groff. In
essence, we concur with appellant that Groff's disclosure of a
pressure sensitive adhesive comprising polypropylene would not
have made obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the
substitution of polypropylene in the polyethylene/paper
laminate of Keeling. Insofar as the polyethylene in the
paper/polyethylene laminate of Keeling is not a pressure
sensitive adhesive, it would not have been obvious for one of
ordinary in the art to employ any pressure sensitive adhesive
in the backing sheet laminate of Keeling.
As noted earlier in the decision, claims 3-10 stand or fall together1
with claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007