0
Interference No. 104,833
Page No. 9
is less than the cohesive strength, and the adhesion capability essentially disappears as the
film is being stretched. The ratio of peel force to tear strength of the tape is about 1:2 or
greater and the adhesive bond can be released by pulling the film in the direction of the
plane of the adhesive joint (Ex. 2005, col. 1, lines 47- 54).
By the standard set forth in Advanced DiWIgy Systems, hic., sul2r , Bries's specification,
has not identified with detailed particularity what specific material it seeks to incorporate. The
general phrase "suitable plastic backing materials. . . " is so vague that we do not know with
reasonable certainty what particular material is at stake and, more importantly where it may be
found in the referenced documents. In other words, we do not know if the "suitable plastic
backing materials" are those described in the Kreckel '581 embodiments, or those of the German
reference, as that material is generally described in the background section of the Kreckel '581
patent, and which purportedly has numerous disadvantages that the Kreckel invention solves.
Logic would dictate that the material to be incorporated is that which is specifically described in
the detailed description section of the Kreckel '581 patent at columns 3 and 4, lines 62 to 17, and
not what is generally described in the background section of the '581 patent, which is said to be
inferior. Bries has failed to sufficiently demonstrate otherwise.
Furthermore, Bries' argument that the recited ratio is old in the art is misplaced. The
issue is not whether the peel force to tear strength ratio would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art based on the Bries disclosure, but whether there is sufficient support in
the specification to demonstrate that the Bries inventors themselves contemplated the claimed
feature at issue.
For these reasons, Hazes preliminary motion I is granted.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007