Appeal No. 1997-0230
Application No. 08/416,668
invention defined by the claims. Yount’s claims, however, are
limited to applying PSA to paper stock.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the method recited in claim 1 or claims 2-7 which
depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom. Consequently, we
reverse the rejection of these claims.
Rejection of claims 8-13
Bennett discloses applying a covering strip to a PSA layer
which has been applied to a release layer (page 2, right col.,
lines 8-10). After the covering layer is removed, the PSA is1
contacted with a second surface such as paper, cardboard, metal,
glass or paint, and the release layer is removed so that the PSA
can be stuck by pressure to a third surface while remaining
adhered to the second surface (page 1, left col., line 55 -
right col., line 20; page 2, left col., lines 38-45).
The deficiencies in Yount discussed above with respect to
1The PSA applied to the release layer by Bennett is an
ever-tacky gum rather than a polymer aqueous emulsion or a
polymer organic solution as required by appellants’ claim 8.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007