Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 11
Application No. 10/412,840
property of Mylar, as discussed above. Appellants’ arguments and
cited evidence with respect to the length of time that it can
take to cure an adhesive of the type claimed are not persuasive.
This is because the claims are not limited to a fully cured
adhesive but rather a substantially fully cured adhesive without
specifying a particular adhesive or cure methodology and time.
Also, the intrinsic moisture absorption properties of the Mylar
substrate of Erickson would not be expected to be materially
affected by the cure time of the cationic curable adhesives
employed by Erickson or the conditions of cure employed by
Erickson. In this regard, appellants have not substantiated that
the intrinsic properties of a thin Mylar substrate as disclosed
by Erickson, and referred to above, would allow for higher
moisture contents of the Mylar before and during cure, than that
claimed at here. This is especially so given Erickson’s method
of cure, including efforts to remove moisture coupled with the
use of a nitrogen blanket during cure, as explained with respect
to Example 5 of the applied patent, for instance. Consequently,
we agree with the examiner that Erickson anticipates
representative claim 13 and the claims grouped therewith.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007