Appeal No. 2001-1387
Application No. 08/715,210
pressure sensitive light tack adhesive, let alone a pressure
sensitive light tack adhesive having the particular shear
characteristics called for in claim 1. Hence, the proposed
Unipac/Helms and Peeters/Helms reference combinations fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in claim 1. These respective 3
reference combinations are similarly lacking with respect to
the subject matter recited in independent claims 14 and/or 17
which also require a pressure sensitive adhesive which more
readily fails in shear than the reusable liner portion
associated therewith. Moreover, Finkelstein, applied along
with Unipac and Helms to support the rejections of dependent
claims 9 through 12 and 15, offers no cure for the
shortcomings of the basic Unipac/Helms combination.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain:
a) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 14 and 17, and dependent claims 2
through 5, 16, 18 and 19, as being unpatentable over Unipac in
view of Helms;
3This being so, there is no need to delve into the merits
of the appellants’ declaration evidence of non-obviousness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007