Appeal 2007-1229
Application 10/325,333
1 ability to adhere to pressure sensitive adhesive.” (Miller, col. 1,
2 ll. 4-7).
3 23. FIG. 3 shows the use of a tape of the kind shown in FIG. 5 on a
4 carton. The carton comprises a rectangular tube and end
5 closures formed of flaps in known manner. A laminate of the
6 type generally shown in FIG. 5 is heat sealed between
7 overlapping flaps 15 and 16. When the carton is opened, the
8 pressure sensitive coated sheet 17 remains adhered to flap 15
9 and the release sheet 18 is adhered to flap 16. This arrangement
10 has the advantage that the contents of the package do not have
11 to pour past the pressure sensitive adhesive to which crumbs
12 may cling.
13
14 (Miller, col. 3, ll. 13-23).
15
16 24. “The pressure sensitive adhesive used in layer 13 is of a well
17 known type.” (Miller, col. 3, ll. 24-25).
18 25. “The release material used in layer 5 also represents a well
19 known category of materials.” (Miller, col. 3, ll. 41-42).
20
21 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
22
23 “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
24 between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
25 that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
26 invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
27 subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
28 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is
29 resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
30 scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
31 subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013