Appeal No. 95-4033
Application 07/669,125
as a basis for obviousness. However, the examiner has not pointed to any data in the references which
compares the adhesive properties of the vinyl-containing polydiorganosiloxane composition of Mitchell to
the silanol-terminated diorganopolysiloxane of Smith to show that Mitchell’s composition has “improved”
adhesive properties over Smith’s composition.
Even if a suggestion to substitute the compositions did flow from the prior art, neither Smith nor
Mitchell teach or suggest the basic three layered laminate defined by appellants’ claims. The examiner
concedes that Smith “does not specifically mention that multilayered laminates comprising a self-bonding
silicon [sic, silicone] compositions [sic, composition] may be formed” (answer: p. 4). Mitchell is directed
to an film comprising an interpenetrating polymer network of polytetrafluoroethylene and a
polydiorganosiloxane having vinyl unsaturation on monofunctional siloxane units (col. 3, lines 55-67; col.
4, lines 5-57). The examiner does not point to any portion of the Mitchell disclosure which would disclose
or suggest a multilayered laminate as set forth in appellants’ claims. The examiner has simply failed to
explain how one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed multilayered laminate
comprising a curable silicone adhesive between layers of plastic, metal and/or glass.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007