Appeal No. 2001-0159
Application 08/936,724
Claim 3
The appellants do not challenge the prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 3 (brief, page 10). Instead, the appellants
rely upon the above-discussed evidence of commercial success for
overcoming the prima facie case of obviousness. The data showing
increased market share, however, are limited to the product
recited in claim 1 (sentence preceding table A in each Iwashita
declaration). There is no evidence of increased market share of
the product recited in claim 3 which, unlike that recited in
claim 1, is covered by a single synthetic resin film rather than
by two synthetic resin films. Because the appellants have not
challenged the prima facie case of obviousness of claim 3 or
overcome it with evidence of secondary considerations, we affirm
the rejection of that claim and claims 9 and 11 which stand or
fall therewith.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 3 and recites that the hot melt
adhesive is a sticking hot melt adhesive.
The examiner argues that sticking hot melt adhesives were
known, and that it is well within the purview of choice in the
art to chose from known adhesives (answer, pages 7-8). For a
prima facie case of obviousness to be established, however, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007