Appeal No. 1997-1485
Application 08/279,046
pressure-sensitive adhesive. The examiner provides no 1
factual basis but merely concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to develop a
laminate with an adhesive backing.” (Answer, page 7).
However, the examiner has failed to provide any evidence or
convincing reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the photographic supports of Tsubaki with
an adhesive backing. “Where the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by facts it cannot stand.” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
Furthermore, it must be noted that, without any adhesive
facing disclosed or taught by Tsubaki, there would be no
reason or motivation to use a release sheet as disclosed by
Patterson or as admitted in appellants’ specification.
The examiner does not direct his comments to any
particular claim in the Answer. However, it appears that some
of the examiner’s comments are directed to claim 23 on appeal
1Tsubaki does disclose treatment of the surface of the
base paper on the side opposite the photographic layer with a
copolymer of ethylene and acrylic acid to promote adhesion
between the base paper and the back resin layer (column 2,
lines 45-49; column 7, lines 1-8; and Example 4 and Table 4 in
column 13).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007