Appeal No. 96-0031
Application No. 08/078,918
further limit the claims upon which they ultimately depend. For instance, independent
claims 1 and 10 require that the opposing faces of the substrate be substantially,
completely covered with a pressure sensitive adhesive and a release coat, whereas
claims 2-5 and 11-14 recite the provision of different compositions between the pressure
sensitive adhesive and the substrate, as well as between the release coat and the
substrate. For example, claim 2 recites a tie coat between the substrate and the pressure
sensitive adhesive, and claim 4 provides for a thermosensitive layer between the substrate
and the release coat. Manifestly, since 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that a dependent claim
"shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it
refers," and must "specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed," it can not be
said that claims 2-5 and 11-14 further limit independent claims 1 and 10 and incorporate
the limitations therein pertaining to the pressure sensitive adhesive and release coat
substantially completely covering the opposing faces of the substrate.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) over Keeling. As urged by appellant, Keeling fails to disclose the claimed
requirement of a substrate having its first and second faces substantially
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007