Appeal No. 1998-1372
Application No. 08/295,708
the adhesive layer of Nussbaum to prevent migration of
plasticizer from the body into the adhesive 21.
Assuming arguendo, that it would have been obvious to use
a metallic barrier layer on the mounting clip of Watanabe, we
are in agreement with the appellant that it would not have
been obvious to extend the metal substrate where there was no
tape, as in claim 13, or to extend the metal substrate beyond
the two pieces of tape, as claimed in claim 25.
The examiner’s counterargument is that one of ordinary
skill would place the metallic layer completely on the rear of
the plastic bearing surface so that no matter the orientation
of the adhesive whether “stripes, dots, wavy lines, or some
other configuration,” the metal would still protect the
plastic bearing surface. However, this argument is not based
on any teaching in the art but is based on speculation and
conjecture on the part of the examiner. Of course, a proper
obviousness rejection cannot
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007