Appeal No. 1996-1942 8
Application No. 07/977,834
Moreover, Ruus specifically discloses that, “[t]he encapsulation technique can also
be used in the preparation of pressure sensitive adhesives for application to placards,
envelopes, etc.[,] where it is necessary that the surface remain non-adhesive until
adherence is desired.” See Ruus, column 1, lines 54-57. We find that Ruus’ definition
of encapsulated pressure sensitive adhesives meets the functional limitation of the claimed
subject matter that the adhesive initially is non-tacky or non-adhesive as stated by Ruus
until adherence is desired. Thereafter, the pressing of an envelope to obtain closure is
reasonably an “external force” as required by the claimed subject matter. Having given
our construction of the claimed subject matter, we apply the above as follows.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies
upon five distinct references and eight distinct rejections to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness.
The Rejections over Sawai
We find that Sawai discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive toner for use in
electrostatic photography. See column 2, lines 25-27. The toner consists of a pressure
sensitive adhesive substance, a pigment and/or a magnetic substance. See column 2,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007