Appeal No. 2004-1118
Application No. 09/619,873
wherein the laminate is sufficiently shear stiff such that
the viscoelastic adhesive layer experiences substantially all
shear strain when the laminate is subjected to shear forces.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Allen, Jr. 4,056,161 Nov. 1, 1977
Schwarz et al. (Schwarz) 4,374,172 Feb. 15, 1983
Okey 4,468,431 Aug. 28, 1984
Saitoh et al. (Saitoh) 5,695,867 Dec. 9, 1997
Claims 17, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Okey in view of Allen, and the
remaining claims on appeal stand correspondingly rejected over
these references and further in view of Schwarz and Saitoh
respectively.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a thorough
discussion of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
These rejections cannot be sustained.
While the combined teachings of Okey and Allen may disclose
each of the laminate components defined by appealed independent
claim 17, it is well settled that a rejection cannot be
predicated on the mere identification in the prior art of
individual components of a claimed invention. In re Kotzab, 217
F.3d 1365, 1371, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007