Appeal No. 95-1743
Application 08/068,345
U.S.C. 102(b) based on Hoey or Edison, respectively. Our reasons
are set forth below.
The Rejection based on Hoey
Appellants’ claim 13 requires that a release agent be
applied to a fabric backing and that an adhesive material be
applied to the release agent. The central issue with respect to
the rejection based on Hoey is the interpretation of Hoey’s
passage in column 4, lines 32-35, which states:
When this is done and a release coating is desired,
it may be applied to the preferably stretched
backing either before or after the application of
pressure-sensitive adhesive.
The examiner relies on this portion of the Hoey reference
(Paper No. 9, third page) to establish anticipation. Yet, the2
quoted-portion is at best nebulous. A review of the
specification of the instant application clearly shows that
appellants do not intend to have the adhesive material contact
the backing. For example, Figure 7 of appellants’ application
illustrates that release agent 20 intervenes between fabric
2We note that the pages of the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 9) are not numbered. We would encourage examiners to number
the pages of their Office actions, including Examiner’s Answers.
We likewise note that appellants’ brief is single-spaced typing.
We would encourage appellants to submit briefs using typing that is
double-spaced.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007