Appeal No. 1996-0670
Application No. 08/043,388
page 3). We affirm the examiner’s rejection for reasons set3
forth in the Answer and those which follow.
OPINION
Appellant admits that the manipulative steps disclosed by
Sackoff to make a laminate are the same as recited in the
claims on appeal (Brief, page 4). Appellant further admits
that Sackoff uses a polysiloxane material as a means of
producing a low zero minute peel value, as also recited in 4
the claims on appeal (Id.). However, appellant argues that
the claims on appeal recite a different means to produce a
zero-minute peel value, namely, an admixture of two
polysiloxanes denominated as polysiloxane (i) and (ii)(Brief,
3The final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-26, 28-41 and 53-54
under § 103 as unpatentable over Sackoff in view of Laurent
(U.S. Patent No. 4,346,189, issued Aug. 24, 1982) was not
repeated in the Answer (see the Answer, page 2, paragraph (4),
and the final rejection dated May 9, 1994, Paper No. 7, page
3). Although the examiner did not explicitly withdraw this
rejection in the Answer, the amendment dated Aug. 15, 1994,
Paper No. 9, pages 5-6, assumes this rejection will be
withdrawn in view of the proposed amendment. Regardless, this
rejection is not before us on appeal. See Paperless
Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663,
231 USPQ 649, 652 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4"Peel Value” and “zero minute peel value” are defined in
appellant’s specification at pages 24-25 and also in Sackoff
at columns 12-13.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007