Appeal No. 2002-2275 Page 5
Application No. 09/652,357
28 over which the tape is extended with its free end being held by an anchoring element
31. In use, the tacky side of the tape is pressed against the insect, which is
“immobilized without being crushed because of the resilient backing provided by the
pad” (column 2, lines 56-58). The used portion of the tape is then removed and a new
section pulled into place over the support pad. See column 2, line 53 et seq..
With respect to the recitation set forth in the appellant’s claim 1, it is our opinion
that Shuster fails to disclose or teach that the substrate which has an adhesive on its
top side further comprises the compressible and hydrophilic pliable material described
in the claim, that is, a substrate of such construction that when force is applied to an
insect captured by the adhesive, the substrate will collapse and form a concave
depression closely conforming to the shape of the insect and partially embedding the
insect to increase the total contact area between the adhesive and the insect. In the
Shuster device, the compressible material is not part of the substrate that carries the
adhesive, but is a separate element. In addition, while Shuster describes the sponge-
like pad as “constituting a resilient support to avoid squashing of the insect on the wall
or ceiling surface,” (column 1, lines 36-38), there is no teaching that the “flexible
adhesive tape such as commercial masking tape,” even when supported by the
sponge-like element, possesses such characteristics as to perform in the manner
prescribed by claim 1 when the device is pressed against an insect on a surface.
Finally, even if it is conceded that masking tape is hydrophilic, this aspect of the terms
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007