Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
interpretation was not explained by the examiner , it would 5
resolve the deficiency in the disclosure of Pointon noted
above since the “silicone release layer” of Pointon would
therefore be coated over the “substrate layer” (i.e., the
“carrier layer” of Pointon). However, the examiner’s
characterization of the “adhesive precursor layer” of Pointon
as equivalent to the “carrier layer” in the claims on appeal
is without any basis in the record before us (see the Answer,
page 4, citing Pointon, column 15, lines 38-41, and column 16,
lines 44-49). The “carrier layer” of the claimed transfer
sheet must have “greater cohesion than adhesion to said
polymer release layer” and be “removable from said release and
substrate layers” (see appealed claim 1). The examiner has
not pointed to any disclosure, teaching or suggestion in
Pointon that the “adhesive precursor layer” has greater
5In fact, the examiner’s position is not clear since the
examiner states that “the image-receiving and carrier layers
disclosed in Pointon are comparable to the ink-receiving and
carrier layer compositions recited” in various claims on
appeal (Answer, page 10). If the examiner compares the
“carrier layer” of the appealed claims to the “carrier layer”
of Pointon, the silicone release layer of Pointon does not
correspond to the “polymer release layer”required by the
claims on appeal (see the discussion above).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007