Appeal No. 1998-2317
Application No. 08/327,601
examiner’s rejections essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief and the reasons below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Stillman discloses a pouch
fabricated from a laminate sheeting comprising an outer ply of
oriented synthetic plastic film and an inner ply of synthetic
plastic film where the surfaces of each ply can be corona
discharge treated to render them wettable and more receptive to
adhesives (Answer, page 4). The examiner further finds that the
outer ply of Stillman can be laminated to the inner ply “with an
acrylic copolymer adhesive” (id., citing col. 3, l. 58) which
the examiner finds “reads on appellant’s [sic, appellants’]
claimed water-based adhesive” since claim 3 on appeal requires
2(...continued)
Paper No. 11). We note that the examiner has recognized that
appellants have not specifically addressed the rejections of
claims 4, 6 and 12 involving Stillman alone or in view of
Murray and Ossian (Answer, sentence bridging pages 2-3).
However, as noted by the examiner (Answer, page 3), appellants
state that the patentability of the claims should be
considered as a single group and measured against independent
claim 1 (Brief, page 4). Accordingly, we consider the
rejections as based on Stillman,
with appellants not contesting the application of the
secondary references to Murray or Ossian.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007