Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 9
Application No. 10/412,840
Erickson’s teaching that the presence of water in the adhesive
composition during the curing would adversely affect the desired
curing (cross-linking). See, e.g., column 9, lines 41-47 of
Erickson.
In light of the above and for the reasons set forth in the
answer, appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of any reversible
error in the examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative
claim 1. It follows that we will sustain the examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 21, which are
argued as a group in the brief.
Claims 4, 5 and 18
Appellants point to the below 4 percent, below 2 percent,
and below about 5 percent substrate/liner moisture limitations of
dependent claims 4, 5, and 18, respectively, under separate
headings in the brief arguing that Erickson does not disclose
coating a substrate possessing a moisture level within any of
those separately claimed ranges in separate arguments for each of
those claims. We disagree.
From our perspective, the Mylar substrate of Erickson would
intrinsically possess a low moisture level within each of those
separately claimed ranges of those dependent claims resulting in
the anticipation of each of those claims by Erickson. In this
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007