Appeal No. 95-4033
Application 07/669,125
It is well settled that the examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). This burden can be satisfied when
the examiner provides objective evidence that some teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or
knowledge generally available, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
the references and to produce the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The claims are directed to a multilayered laminate comprising a first and third layers of plastic, metal
or glass; a second layer between the first and third layers comprising a curable silicone adhesive
composition which will bond in the absence of a primer to the first and third layers. The claimed silicone
composition comprises a vinyl-containing polydiorganosiloxane, a hydrogen containing polysiloxane, a
catalytic amount of a hydrosilation catalyst, and an effective amount of an adhesion promoter.
Smith is directed to a self-bonding silicone adhesive composition comprising a silanol-terminated
diorganopolysiloxane, an adhesion promoter such as that claimed by appellants, and a hydrogen-containing
polysiloxane (col. 2, lines 29-44; col. 5, line 61 to col. 6, line 68; col. 8, line 43 to col. 9, line 10; col. 11,
lines 8-20). The examiner concedes that Smith does not disclose a vinyl-containing diorganosiloxane
polymer composition and relies on Mitchell to show that such a polymer composition is known in the art.
Mitchell discloses preparing a film comprising an interpenetrating polymer network comprising
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007