Appeal No. 1996-1784
Application 08/131,037
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-20, 22-26, 28 and 29 of copending
Application 08/131,036. These claims also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martens
considered with one of Yada and Bartissol.
OPINION
Appellants do not challenge the provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection (brief, page 5). We therefore
summarily affirm this rejection.
As for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we have
carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
appellants and the examiner and agree with appellants that
this rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Martens discloses a method for making a pressure
sensitive adhesive by irradiating a solventless liquid mixture
of at least one acrylate-type monomer, at least one
copolymerizable monomer, and a photoinitiator using radiation
having a wavelength of from 300 to 400 nm and an intensity of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007