Appeal No. 1998-2317
Application No. 08/327,601
the examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We determine that, on this record,
the examiner has not met this initial burden. The adhesives
disclosed by Stillman are not “acrylic copolymer adhesives” as
found by the examiner (Answer, page 4) but are “conventional
adhesives used to effect lamination, for example, polyethylene
or ethyl acrylic acid copolymers.” See Stillman, col. 3, ll.
56-58, emphasis added. Accordingly, the ethyl acrylic acid
copolymer adhesive taught by Stillman is not the same material
as the acrylic copolymer recited in claim 3 on appeal.
Accordingly, the examiner has not met the burden of proof for an
anticipation rejection that all the elements of the claimed
subject matter are described by the single reference.
Furthermore, the effect of substituents on the acrylic acid
group, as well as the amount of acrylic acid monomer in the
copolymer composition, could alter the water solubility of the
adhesive. The examiner has failed to establish that the
specific adhesives taught by Stillman necessarily are water-
based adhesives within the scope of claim 1 on appeal. At col.
3, l. 59, Stillman also teaches that saran adhesives may be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007