Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 8
Application No. 10/412,840
We reach essentially the same result with respect to
appellants’ contention that Erickson does not disclose the
representative claim 1 limitation requiring that the cure of the
coated substrate is allowed to occur under low moisture
conditions. Concerning this matter, we agree with the examiner
for reasons set forth in the answer that Erickson clearly
describes curing the applied coating in a fashion that the
claimed “low moisture” condition cure reads on. In this regard,
we note, for instance, that Example 5 of Erickson (column 19,
line 62 through column 20, line 21) describes coating the
adhesive onto sheets of Mylar to form dry coating formulation
samples that are irradiated after preheating to remove any
moisture. As further described in the above referenced portion
of the description of Example 5 of Erickson, a nitrogen blanket
is employed during the curing. In addition, Erickson (see, e.g.,
table 7 and Example 5 at column 20, line 22 through column 21,
line 3 of the applied patent) describes the coating and curing of
adhesives, as claimed, onto a Mylar substrate/liner in a manner
that results in a functional product; that is, a product that has
adequate gel formation and cohesive strength and shear
resistance, properties that are consistent with low moisture
conditions during the curing of the adhesive, as evidenced by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007