Appeal No. 95-0876
Application 08/006,517
adhesive. Thus it can be seen that the disclosure of Esmay clearly anticipates claims 17
and 18 of the application on appeal.
As our fact-finding has shown, there is no difference between the disclosure of
Esmay and the method as claimed in claims 17 and 18. Therefore the obviousness
rejection of these claims is affirmed, since the evidence establishes lack of all novelty in
the claimed invention which necessarily evidences obviousness. After all, anticipation is
the epitome of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982).
With respect to claims 19 and 24, we note that Esmay clearly discloses that his
double-sided pressure sensitive tape is suitable for a reliable adhesion with respect to
ordinary paper, metal, glass, plastic, and painted substrates. Esmay, column 2, lines
23-25. Inasmuch as Esmay discloses mounting ordinary paper on painted or unpainted
plastic, metal, or glass, we are in agreement with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tape of Esmay to mount paper, posters,
bulletins, and temporary labels to shelves or furniture edges.
Metal, glass, and plastic are common components found in modern office furniture.
Turning now to the rejection of the other claims on appeal, claims 1 through 9, 13
through 15, and 21 through 23, we note that all these claims, whether method or apparatus
claims, require a releasable liner covering one of the adhesives. With respect to Esmay it
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007