Appeal No. 1998-0485
Application 08/365,378
of the aforementioned intermediate layer and adhesive layer. This appealed subject matter is
adequately illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. A device for inhibiting atmospheric ice accumulation on an aircraft structure,
comprising:
a flexible ice protector;
an intermediate layer bonded to said flexible ice protector, said intermediate layer
having a lesser modulus of elasticity than said flexible ice protector;
a pressure sensitive adhesive layer bonded to said intermediate layer, said pressure
sensitive adhesive layer defining a bonding surface that bonds to the aircraft structure.
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness:
Townsend 4,246,303 Jan. 20, 1981
The admitted prior art described on page 1 of the subject specification
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Townsend. On page 5 of the Answer, the examiner
describes his basic position as follows:
The admitted prior art teaches that adhesive backed flexible ice protectors of the
instantly claimed versions are well known (Instant specification, page 1). The
admitted prior art fails to suggest the use of a double sided adhesive tape
comprising a support having a low modulus of elasticity.
Townsend teaches that double sided adhesive tapes with a foam support
layer and acrylic adhesive layers can be used to bond a molding to the outer
surface of a vehicle (column 2, lines 30-36). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a double sided adhesive tape such as shown by
Townsend to bond the ice protector of the admitted prior art to an airplane
because Townsend shows the tape to be effective for bonding to exterior
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007