Appeal No. 1999-2511
Application 08/847,414
releasable layer for a metallized laminate and the examiner has
not provided any showing as to why this peel strength would be
applicable to the laminate of Asnes.
Even if the references were combinable as proposed by the
examiner, the claimed subject matter would not be shown or
suggested. The examiner has not pointed to any finding from
Asnes that this reference contains a “substantially contiguous
layer of a thermoplastic containing material” as required by
claim 25 on appeal. The examiner characterizes a layer disclosed
by Asnes as a “transferable image layer” (Answer, page 4) but
Asnes discloses this layer as a “design print” and does not
specify any thermoplastic containing layer (see col. 14, ll. 4-
11). The examiner gives no explanation as to why one of ordinary
skill in this art would have replaced this design print layer of
Asnes with a thermoplastic containing layer. Furthermore, as
discussed above, none of the references disclose or suggest the
claimed adhesive, peel strengths, or the temperature and peel
strength relationship recited in claim 25 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007