Appeal No. 1997-3868 Page 5
Application No. 08/538,838
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the grounds of
rejection set forth in the answer. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the
examiner’s stated rejections.
All of the claims on appeal are directed to a lamination
process which includes the steps of: (1) forming fluoropolymer
laminates that are each composed of a fluoropolymer material,
an adhesive material and a release material and (2) laminating
a device, such as an array of electrically connected solar
cells, to a pair of such fluoropolymer laminates to secure a
fluoropolymer laminate on opposite sides of the device after
removing the release material (liner) from each fluoropolymer
laminate on that side.
As explained by the examiner (answer, page 5), Watkin
discloses a process for the lamination of a plastic material,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007