Appeal No. 1999-0687
Application No. 08/560,315
disclosed tape can be used in a method of adhering a lens
block to a lens blank as disclosed in Ohlin and presently
claimed. For
this reason, we must agree with appellants that there is no
factual basis for concluding that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the tape of
Sipinen for the tape used in the process of Ohlin.
The examiner's rejection of claims 38 and the claims
dependent thereon is similarly flawed. While Ohno discloses a
multilayer backing in the formation of a pressure-sensitive
adhesive tape, Ohno is directed to methods for binding
packages
and masking. Hence, even if it were obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the tape of Sipinen in a
multi-layer fashion of the type disclosed by Ohno, as proposed
by the examiner, there remains no factual basis for
substituting the modified tape of Sipinen in the method of
Ohlin for adhering a lens block to a lens blank.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007