Appeal No. 1997-1485
Application 08/279,046
the need for a release coating on the release sheet (Id.).
The examiner cites
appellants’ specification, pages 21-23, for the disclosure
that a variety of release coatings are commercially available
and “hence well known.” (Answer, page 6). From these
findings, the examiner makes the following conclusions:
It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined
the teachings of the references in an
effort to develop a laminate with an
adhesive backing. The use of an adhesive
backing would allow one to secure the
laminate onto a substrate and further the
use of a release sheet over an adhesive
surface is well known as shown in Patterson
‘511 (col. 1, lines 8-25; col. 3, lines 38-
43). (Answer, page 7).
Appellants argue that Tsubaki does not disclose an
adhesive layer or a release layer as required by the claims
and that neither reference applied against the claims
discloses the pressure-sensitive adhesive (element (D) of
claim 10, see the Brief, pages 6 and 8).
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not
established that Tsubaki or Patterson discloses or suggests
element (D) of claim 10, i.e., a third coating on the lower
surface of the second coating of polyolefin comprising a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007