Appeal No. 97-1499
Application 08/242,297
1996), the REPLY BRIEF (Paper 16) and the supplemental
EXAMINER'S ANSWER (Paper 17 mailed 2 August 1996), it is
ORDERED that the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 19-22, 24 and 26-27 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sackoff, U.S. Patent 4,151,319 (1979), is
reversed.
)))))))))) @ ))))))))))
We understand the examiner to have determined that claim
19 did not call for adhesive layer 20. In our opinion, the
examiner failed to accord sufficient and appropriate weight to
the limitation "adhered to" in paragraph (a)(ii) of claim 19.
A review of Fig. 4 of the drawing and the corresponding
description of Fig. 4 in the specification will reveal that
Fig. 4 describes a laminate with "a substrate layer" 22 and a
"first stabilizing layer" 10 "adhered" together with an
adhesive layer 20. See also page 4, line 1 of the
specification.
The language "adhered to" is found in claim 19 and must
be given appropriate weight. To determine the meaning of
"adhered to" we have looked to the specification. Compare
Digital Biometrics Inc. v. Identix Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007