Appeal No. 1998-0080
Application No. 08/177,763
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner notes that the admitted prior art of appellants’
Figure 18 essentially shows a plurality of polarizer elements
connected end-to-end on a single releasable strip. The
examiner notes that the salient difference between Figure 18
and the claimed invention is in the claimed plurality or
series of releasable strips connected end-to-end by adhesive
strips. The examiner cites Schmidt as teaching that it was
well known to connect releasable strips to each other by an
adhesive strip. The examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the single releasable strip of
appellants’ Figure 18 to include a series of at least three
releasable strips connected longitudinally by adhesive strips
as claimed [answer, pages 2-3].
Appellants argue that Schmidt at best teaches
connecting two webs together with adhesive strips on the
transverse side of the webs rather than in the longitudinal
direction. Appellants note that there is no suggestion in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007