Appeal No. 2005-0279
Application No. 10/036,708
The appellants disagree with the examiner’s finding that the
here claimed tie layer is indistinguishable from Wynne’s adhesive
layer. This disagreement is expressed on page 4 of the brief in
the following manner:
An adhesive layer is altogether different from a tie
layer due to the differences in the lamination process used
for the two layers. Three lamination technologies are
commonly used and known in the art: adhesive lamination,
thermal (or heat) lamination, and extrusion lamination.
Adhesive lamination uses an adhesive layer applied onto one
of the substrates prior to combination of the thermoplastic
layers. Thermal (or heat) lamination melts the adhesive
layer, either by heated rollers or a heated oven prior to
combination. Extrusion lamination, on the other hand, uses
a molten polymer web that serves as a tie layer. The tie
layer would not work (at last not very well) in an adhesion
lamination process, and the adhesive layer likewise would
not work in an extrusion lamination process. Therefore,
disclosure of an adhesive layer cannot constitute disclosure
of the claimed layer.
The appellants above quoted argument is unpersasive for two
reasons. First, it is completely unsupported on the record of
this appeal. Second, and more importantly, this argument is
directly contradicted by the appellants’ own specification
disclosure. In particular, the appellants’ aforequoted assertion
that “[t]he [here claimed] tie layer would not work . . . in an
adhesion lamination process . . . ” is contrary to the disclosure
at lines 20-21 on specification page 15 that, “[w]hile an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007