Appeal No. 1997-3334
Application No. 08/456,588
reference in the manner proposed in the examiner’s rejection.
The identity of the final product is not particularly relevant
to the method claims on appeal (see the Answer, page 4).
Characterizing the difference between the claimed subject
matter and the disclosure of Platzer ‘120 as a “mere matter of
design choice” (Answer, page 5) does not meet the examiner’s
initial burden unless the examiner sets forth convincing
reasoning and/or evidence that such “design choices” would
have been well known in the art, i.e., a showing that it was
well known in the art to have a photosensitive layer without
any adhesive layer protecting it and it was well known in the
art to have another adhesive layer laminated to the high peel
strength adhesive layer. The examiner has not presented any
such showing on this record.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief and Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the examiner’s rejection of claims 21 through 42 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Platzer ‘120 is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007