Appeal No. 96-3315
Application 08/209,405
As a consequence of our review, we have reached the determina-
tion which follows.
Like appellants, even if we were to agree that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Hurst’s roll-form release sheet/tape in the manner
urged by the examiner in view of Williams and Lutzmann (an-
swer, page 4), we are of the view that such modifications
would not produce a pressure-sensitive sealing tape as set
forth in the claims before
us on appeal. Independent claim 1 defines the sealing tape
therein as “consisting essentially of:” A) a thin, biaxially
oriented, synthetic-plastic film ply; B) a paper ply cold
laminated to the inner surface of the plastic film ply by a
water-based adhesive to form a laminate; C) a layer of
pressure-sensitive adhesive “coating one side of the lami-
nate;” and D) a release agent “coating the other side of the
laminate. Thus, claim 1 requires a sealing tape having five
(5) layers and excludes any other layers that would materially
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007