Appeal No. 1997-3334
Application No. 08/456,588
The examiner finds that Platzer ‘120 describes, teaches
and suggests “each of the essential requirements of the
instant invention as claimed except for teaching that the
adhesive transfer article (comprising a substrate having a
release surface on the substrate) is laminated” via the
adhesive layer to the high peel strength adhesive layer on the
receiver sheet (Answer, page 3, emphasis added). Appellant
agrees that “[t]he present claims require the use of an
adhesive transfer article which is absent from Platzer ‘120,”
also noting that the present invention requires three
laminations as opposed to the two laminations required by
Platzer ‘120 (Brief, page 10; see also the Reply Brief, page
3).
Although the examiner recognizes the deficiency in the
disclosure and teachings of Platzer ‘120, the examiner
concludes that “the same final product is being obtained” and
it would have been prima facie obvious to laminate the second
adhesive layer of Platzer ‘120 onto the high peel strength
adhesive layer with subsequent lamination of the
photosensitive article since the choice of lamination to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007