Appeal No. 1997-0427
Application 08/296,427
layer reaches the laminate interface between the non-porous sheet and the porous sheet
all as required by the claims on appeal. However, this has not happened. Rather it
appears from the examiner's statement of the rejection on pages 3-6 of the Examiner's
Answer that the examiner has misread Akemi. The examiner alleges at page 4 of the
Examiner's Answer that Akemi describes a medical adhesive sheet according to the
claimed invention wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is "embedded on the
porous sheet (page 3, line 3)." This is incorrect.
What Akemi actually states at that portion is that the pressure-sensitive adhesive
layer is "on the surface of the porous sheet." The word "embed" does not appear at that
portion of the reference. Nor does it appear that the word "embed" is used anywhere in
the reference. At best, Akemi describes the assembly of the medical adhesive sheet of
that reference as involving the adherence of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to the
porous sheet. See, e.g., Example 1 of Akemi. However, no details are given as to how
the two layers are “adhered” so that it cannot be determined whether the device created in
that example meets the terms of the claims on appeal.
The examiner has failed to come to grips with that aspect of the claimed subject
matter which specifies how the porous sheet is embedded in the pressure-sensitive
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007