Appeal No. 2005-1595 9
Application No. 09/870,180
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in the Brief, we are constrained
to agree with the appellants that the examiner has not demonstrated, by preponderance of
evidence, that the UV curable resin taught by Chau inherently or necessarily has
pressure-sensitive adhesive properties. Hence, on this record, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s decision rejecting 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.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 31, 33,
34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but reverse claims 22 through 30, 32 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007