Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
neither Lichstein nor Vukos teach or suggest a hot melt pressure
sensitive adhesive having the properties set forth in paragraph
(c) of appealed claim 1. This argument fails at the outset,
however, because it does not take into account that the rejection
is based on the combined teachings of Zacharias PCT ‘238, Paul,
Lichstein and Vukos.
In light of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 3 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will be sustained.
REMAND
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of
the following matters.
This application appears to be a voluntarily filed
continuation-in-part application of 08/659,858, now U.S. Patent
6,213,993. The examiner should determine whether the subject
matter claimed in the present application is patentably distinct
from the claimed subject matter in the ‘993 patent, either alone
or in combination with other prior art of which the examiner may
be aware. In the event it is determined that any claim of the
present application is not patentably distinct from the claimed
subject matter of the ‘993 patent, an appropriate rejection under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting should be made.
26
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007