Appeal No. 1998-0485
Application 08/365,378
surfaces of moving vehicles and because double sided tapes allow for flexibility
in construction due to their ability to be adhered to one object in a factory and
then carried on site to the object on which it should be mounted.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for a complete exposition of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-
noted rejection.
OPINION
This rejection cannot be sustained.
It is well settled that, for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the applied prior art must
contain a suggestion to modify the prior art so as to result in the claimed invention and must
contain evidence for reasonably expecting that the modification would be successful. In re
O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the § 103
rejection before us, the prior art applied by the examiner does not contain the requisite
suggestion or reasonable expectation of success.
This is because the Townsend reference teaches using a double-sided adhesive tape,
referred to by the examiner in the above quotation, only for the purpose of adhering body side
moulding to a side of a vehicle body for a decorative purpose and/or a protective purpose such
as absorbing the impact caused by a door of another vehicle (e.g., see lines 7 through 62 in
column 1). As correctly indicated by the appellant, Townsend contains no teaching or
suggestion of using a double-sided adhesive tape for adhering a flexible ice protector to an
aircraft structure or of using this tape in a corresponding or at least similar adhering
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007