Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
With respect to the other independent claim, 15,
Appellants further argue [brief, pages 6 to 7 and reply brief,
page 2] that “Applicants’ reference to ‘removably’, when read
in the light of the specification, recites that the protective
layer is bonded to the substrate so as to be debondable
therefrom without destroying the members [id. 6].” The
Examiner responds [answer, page 4] that “it is evident that
[,in Hilton,] at some temperature, the protective layer will
be removed from the substrate. While this temperature may be
different than that set forth in the appellants’ disclosure,
it is not a claimed feature. Neither is [claimed] any
recitation as to the appearance of the substrate after the
removal of the protective layer.” We are convinced by the
Examiner’s reasoning. Appellants’ claim 15 does not require
that the protective layer be removed by heating to a
particular temperature. For example, it may be removed by
heating to a sufficiently high temperature. Also, we find it
to be true that claim 15 does not specify the appearance or
condition of the surface of the substrate after the protective
layer is removed. In other words, there is no requirement in
the claim that the substrate must be left in a reusable
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007