Appeal No. 1997-0230
Application No. 08/416,668
then join it to the paper (brief, page 3), the examiner argues
that such a method is described in Yount’s discussion of the
prior art (answer,page 5). In that discussion, Yount teaches
that the prior art method causes wrinkling (col. 1, lines 14-
36).
Even if Yount would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art who was not concerned with wrinkling to dry the adhesive and
then contact the adhesive with the paper stock, the examiner has
not provided a convincing explanation as to why Yount would have
led such a person to use the prior art method disclosed therein
to apply PSA to a porous carpet underlayment pad. The
examiner’s argument is that Yount is not limited to paper stock
(answer, page 6). The portions of Yount which the examiner
relies upon in support of this argument are column 1, lines 8-10
and 34-36, and column 4, lines 62-67. The relied-upon portion
in column 1 refers to paper stock and items such as tags,
stickers and labels. There does not appear to be a suggestion
of applying the method to a porous carpet underlayment pad. The
portion in column 4 states that the invention is not limited to
the precise method described in Yount’s specification and that
changes may be made without departing from the scope of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007