Appeal 2007-0487
Application 09/759,993
Here, Appellants have not satisfied this burden by the arguments
furnished in the Briefs.
In further regard to this matter, we note that the claim recitation
“wherein the winding roll and the support roll are arranged on the frame
such that tension applied to an adhesive film during removal of the adhesive
film from the substrate is transferred to the substrate through the support
roll, and wherein the support roll is not located at a release line of the
adhesive film” (cl. 22) identifies the utility of removing adhesive film from a
substrate as a potential use of the claimed apparatus frame and rolls. This
utility is a use that Apollonio and Kuroda fairly disclose for their apparatus
frame and rolls as a reading of these references relates and as noted above
and in the Supplemental Answer. As for the recited and repeatedly argued
transfer of tension applied to the film during removal thereof from a
substrate to the substrate through the support roll, we again note that
representative claim 22 is drawn to apparatus not a method of using same.
Furthermore, Appellants have not substantiated their arguments with
evidence. For example, Appellants have not submitted a force diagram
prepared by a recognized expert showing how the spaced rolls on a frame
constructed according to claim 22 necessarily are capable of acting on a
substrate during an adhesive removal operation with transfer of at least some
tension experienced by a film as a [compressive force] to the substrate via
the rolls according to the claim 22 requirements whereas the spaced rolls and
frame of the applied references are incapable of so transferring tension
applied to a film no matter how used during adhesive removal.4
4 Indeed, the tension acting on an adhesive film being pulled from a
substrate would seemingly result from a force being applied to the film and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013