Appeal No. 2006-0124
Application No. 10/071,301
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate on
pages 3, 6, and 7 of the Brief that they consider claims 1
through 5, 9 through 12, and 19 through 24 to be one group,
claims 6 through 8 to be a second group, and claims 13 through 18
to be a third group. We will treat the claims as falling into
the three groups set forth by appellants, with claims 1, 6, and
13 as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 24.
Independent claim 1 (the only independent claim in Group I)
recites, in pertinent part, an adhesive layer which comprises "a
water-soluble crosslinking agent capable of crosslinking a vinyl
alcohol-based polymer." The examiner (Answer, page 4) recognizes
that Buzzell's adhesive layer does not contain a crosslinking
agent. However, the examiner directs our attention to column 5,
lines 25-30, of Buzzell, wherein Buzzell teaches that a
crosslinking agent "improve[s] the properties of the [mordanting]
polymer, such as to maintain the dimensional stability of the
polymer against ambient humidity, and to meet the above-mentioned
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007