Appeal No. 1997-0566
Application No. 08/344,345
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the
examiner's Section 103 rejection of claims 13 through 23 but
not his rejection of claims 1 through 12.
As correctly argued by the appellants in their brief, the
here-applied references contain no teaching or suggestion of
the appealed claim 1 method features relating to providing an
adhesive substance in strip form that is composed solely of
the adhesive substance and heating this strip form adhesive
substance to a temperature at which it will bond to the paint
roller core. From our perspective, none of the applied
references even discloses the here-claimed strip form adhesive
substance, much less contains any teaching or suggestion of
substituting this strip form adhesive substance for the spray
adhesive step used in Sekar's method. As a consequence, it is
quite clear that we cannot sustain the examiner's Section 103
rejection of independent claim 1 or of claims 2 through 6
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007