Appeal No. 2002-2317
Application No. 09/025,607
pressure-sensitive adhesive composition” in the preamble of the
appellants’ claim 1 is a limitation of the claimed invention.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 over Uraneck. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-22, 24, 28 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Uraneck.
Claims 45-48
The appellants’ claims 45 and 46 require the use of a basic
hot-melt adhesive, and claims 47 and 48 require the use of an
acidic hot melt adhesive.
The examiner does not address these limitations. Because
the examiner has not pointed out where Uraneck discloses a basic
or acidic hot-melt adhesive, or explained how Uraneck would have
fairly suggested such a hot-melt adhesive to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over Uraneck of
the methods claimed in the appellants’ claims 45-48.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of these claims over
Uraneck.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007