Appeal No. 2001-0242
Application No. 09/183,114
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this appeal,
we have carefully considered the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence advanced by
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. As a consequence of this consideration, we have made
the determinations which follow.
We reverse rejections (1) and (2) for the reasons set forth at
pages 3 through 6 of the Brief. The examiner acknowledges that
neither Kreckel nor Korpman teaches or would have suggested the
placement of a pressure sensitive adhesive composition on a
plurality of discrete and discontinuous areas of at least one
surface of a backing material. Although Takemoto teaches such a
limitation, it is not relied upon in the examiner’s statements of
rejection for rejections (1) and (2).
We also reverse rejection (3) for reasons stated infra in our
new ground of rejection entered against claims 2 through 15
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). In comparing the claimed subject
matter with the applied prior art, it is apparent to us that
considerable speculations and assumptions are necessary in order to
determine what in fact is being claimed. Since a rejection on
prior art cannot be based on speculations and assumptions (see In
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007