Appeal No. 95-1743
Application 08/068,345
These last two quoted-portions of Hoey seemingly indicate
that the release layer facilitates unrolling by preventing the
adhesive from contacting fabric on both sides (the side to which
the adhesive is originally applied and the other side when the
adhesive-coated fabric is rolled). The adhesive of appellants’
adhesive bandaging material, made in accordance with appellants'
process, would contact both the side to which it was applied and
the opposite when the material is rolled (because the release
layer is between the adhesive and the fabric to which both the
adhesive and release layer are applied). See Figure 1 of
appellants' application. It may well be that the most plausible
interpretation of Hoey is that the release agent is applied to
one side of the fabric while the adhesive is applied to the other
side. If so, then Hoey manifestly does not anticipate
appellants' claim 13. Since the teachings of Hoey are less than3
clear, it cannot be relied upon as an anticipatory reference.
For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) of claims 13 and 15 as
anticipated by the Hoey.
3Claim 15 depends from claim 13. Since claim 15 is narrower
than claim 13, it likewise cannot be anticipated by Hoey.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007