Ex Parte Bany et al - Page 3

                 Appeal 2007-2144                                                                                        
                 Application 10/147,015                                                                                  


                        a release coating disposed on the fibrous material of the porous                                 
                 substrate; wherein the release coating comprises a thermoplastic                                        
                 silicone-containing polymer comprising at least about 30% silicone                                      
                 segments and 1-5% carboxylic acid moieties, wherein the                                                 
                 thermoplastic silicone-containing polymer is deposited out of a                                         
                 composition comprising water; and wherein the release coating is                                        
                 penetrated into no more than the top 20% of the fibrous material.                                       
                                                                                                                        
                        As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the                                
                 Examiner has relied upon the following references:                                                      
                 Seth    US 6,129,964   Oct. 10, 2000                                                                    
                 Leir    EP 0 380 236 A2   Jan. 8, 19902                                                                 
                        The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19                                   
                 through 23, 25, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the                            
                 combined disclosures of Seth and Leir.                                                                  
                        The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the                                 
                 claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                                              

                                                           ISSUES                                                        
                        1. Does substantial evidence support the Examiner’s finding that                                 
                 the prior art relied upon would have taught or suggested using a pressure-                              
                 sensitive adhesive backing layer containing the claimed  fiber content within                           
                 the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?                                                                      


                                                                                                                        
                 2  Both the publication date and/or the teachings of EP 0 380 236 referred to                           
                 in the Answer dated June 30, 2006 and the Final Office dated December 1,                                
                 2005 indicate that the Examiner has relied on EP 0380 236 A2.                                           
                                                           3                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013