Appeal No. 2005-0214
Application No. 09/742,653
This review has led us to the following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 31-33, 35-40, 42,
46-52, 55, and 59 as being obvious over Rusincovitch
We consider claim 31.
At the bottom of page 5 of the answer, the examiner states
that the primary issue in this rejection is whether Rusincovitch
suggests a pattern of non-adhesive material forms, embedded into
the top release surface of the release liner, wherein the top
surface of the non-adhesive material forms, is even with, or
below, the plane of the top release surface of the release liner,
as recited in appealed claim 31. The examiner’s position for
this rejection is set forth on pages 2-5 of the final Office
action mailed October 27, 2003, and we refer to the position as
set forth therein. We note that the examiner has modified his
position in so much as to state, on page 8 of the answer, that
the examiner agrees with the appellant that the method of making
the product in Rusincovitch is different from appellant’s
process, and therefore the examiner withdraws the contention,
outlined in the final rejection, that the non-adhesive forms
would inherently be even with, or below, the top surface of the
release liner.
Although the examiner recognizes that Rusincovitch does not
inherently disclose non-adhesive forms embedded into the top
release surface of the release liner, the examiner states that
Rusincovitch suggests to modify the position of the non-adhesive
forms such that the forms may be partially, or fully, embedded
into the release liner. Answer, page 8. The examiner refers to
appellant’s specification, page 18, paragraph [0047], which
discloses that “the non-adhesive material may be fully or
partially embedded into the release liner”. From this
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007