Appeal No. 95-0876
Application 08/006,517
As to claims 4, 8, 10, and 11, the examiner states that Esmay teaches priming his
carrier to ensure better adhesion. Therefore the examiner is of the view that it would have
been obvious to prime the substrate of Esmay with a tie coat to provide better adhesion.
As to claims 19, 20, and 24, Esmay contemplates a wide variety of instances where
his tape would be useful. The examiner mentions adhering to paper or painted metal. The
examiner states that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
tape was adherable to shelving, and the disclosure of Esmay would have thus rendered
such a process obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Rather than reiterate the
argument of the appellants, reference is made to the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief for
the full details of these arguments.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the arguments of the
appellants and the examiner. As result of this review, we have reached the determination
that the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 17, 18, 19, and 24. Accordingly, the rejection of these claims will be sustained.
We have further determined that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claims 1 through 9, 13 through 15, and 20 through 23. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007