Appeal No. 2001-0242
Application No. 09/183,114
Compare Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1989); Ex parte Forsyth, 151 USPQ 55, 56 (Bd. App. 1966).
Moreover, it is not clear what tackifiers are intended to
encompass by “tackifiers such as oils, waxes, resins and mixtures
thereof, preferably mixtures of resins and oils”. Specifically, it
cannot be ascertained from the specification and claim 5 whether
the appellants intend to limit claim 5 to any tackifiers, the
exemplified tackifiers or the preferred tackifiers. See Ex parte
Hall, 83 USPQ 38, 39 (Bd. App. 1949).
In view of the foregoing, we determine that claims 2 through
15 not only fail to accurately define the invention in the
technical sense, but also lack consistency, thus rendering them
indefinite.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of either Kreckel or Korpman and
Takemoto.
Appellants do not dispute that both Kreckel and Korpman
disclose the claimed adhesive tape except for the following claim
feature:
said pressure sensitive adhesive composition being coated
on said at least one surface in a plurality of discrete
and discontinuous areas...
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007