Appeal No. 2005-1595 8
Application No. 09/870,180
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the Answer, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 31, 33, 34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chau and Stamm.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 22 through 30, 32 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chau, Stamm and
Rowland. The disclosures of Chau and Stamm are discussed above. As acknowledged
by the examiner (Answer, page 5), Chau and Stamm are silent as to employing the
claimed transparent radiation curable pressure-sensitive adhesive.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the disclosure of Rowland. Id. It
appears to be the examiner’s position that the UV curable transparent acrylic resin taught
by Chau necessarily or inherently has pressure-sensitive adhesive properties as
evidenced by Rowland. See the Answer, pages 5-6. However, the columns, lines and
examples of Rowland referred to by the examiner only teach or suggest applying a
pressure-sensitive adhesive material to a specifically formed base layer having cube
corner cavities coated with a reflective material. As argued by the appellants (Brief, page
4), nothing in Rowland referred to by the examiner teaches that the UV curable resin
taught by Chau has pressure-sensitive adhesive properties or that its pressure-sensitive
adhesive is radiation or UV curable. See also Rowland, column 4, lines 42-50, column 7,
lines 63-70 and 74-75, column 8, lines 1-2 and the Examples.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007