Appeal No. 1999-2492 Page 4
Application No. 08/801,676
viewpoints expressed by appellant and the examiner concerning
the rejections.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the record, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellant that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472,
223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejections, as stated.
The obviousness, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103,
of combining the teachings of FR 2,303,843 with White or
Iwasa, and the alleged admitted prior art in a manner to
arrive at appellant’s adhesive laminate as recited in claim 10
or so as to arrive at the adhesive laminate component of
appellant’s claim 1 is central to each of the examiner’s
rejections. Concerning this matter, in describing FR
2,303,843 in the carryover paragraph at pages 4 and 5 of the
answer and in the rejections, the examiner makes clear that FR
2,303,843 does not teach the metal primer component or the
specific rubber primer of appellant’s adhesive laminate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007