Appeal No. 96-3315
Application 08/209,405
opinion that the language of appellants’ claim 1 requires that
the pressure-sensitive adhesive be applied
as a coating directly on one side of the laminate, while the
release agent is applied as a coating directly on the other
side of the laminate. As a second point, we consider that the
examiner has totally disregarded the limiting effect of the
“consisting essentially of” language of appellants’ claim 1.
Thus, after considering the combined teachings of
the applied references, it is our determination that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to appellants’ claimed sealing tape. For that
reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2, 3 and 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2,
3 and 10 through 14 of the present application is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007