Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
cohesion than adhesion to the release layer and has release
properties as required of the “carrier layer” in appealed
claim 1.
The secondary references to Maruyama, Hindagolla,
Desjarlais, Smith, Barton, and Rohowetz do not cure the
deficiencies of Pointon detailed above (see the Answer, pages
5-7, for the application of these secondary references). For
the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1-6, 10, 12, 14, 20-25 and 29 under §
103 as unpatentable over Pointon in view of Maruyama and
Hindagolla is reversed. Similarly, the rejection of claims
15-19 under § 103 as unpatentable over Pointon in view of
Maruyama and Hindagolla further in view of Desjarlais, Smith,
Barton, and Rohowetz is reversed. The rejection of all the
appealed claims under § 103 as unpatentable over Pointon is
also reversed.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 15 and 20 under § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed. The rejection of all of the appealed
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007