Appeal No. 1998-1470
Application 08/533,740
Appellants argue that the essential difference between
Hoogeveen and the subject matter of claims 1 and 7 is the
claimed recitation of "an adhesive layer integrally joining
said substrate and said protective member." Appellants argue
that Hoogeveen discloses that brim 44 is secured to
substrate 41 "by means of an adhesive" (col. 4, line 25), but
does not define any purpose of the adhesive and thus fails to
teach the advantages of an adhesive layer which not only
adheres the protective rim to the substrate, but also provides
the structure and function of damping the shocks conducted to
the glass substrate (Br5-6).
The Examiner responds that the claims do not define any
additional purpose for the adhesive, so Appellants' argument
is not commensurate in scope with the claims (EA8). The
Examiner further opines that even if the alternate purpose of
providing damping was claimed, the adhesive in Hoogeveen would
fulfill the same role (EA8).
We agree with the Examiner that the claims do not recite
any purpose for the adhesive other than "integrally joining
said substrate and said protective member," which is
accomplished by Hoogeveen. Although most adhesives are not
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007