Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 13
Application No. 10/412,840
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
While we find that Erickson anticipates and hence renders
the claimed method prima facie obvious for the reasons outlined
above, we further determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to the claimed process by simply following
the teachings of Erickson by avoiding the presence of water
during the radiation cross-linking of the adhesive while on a
substrate, such as Mylar. In selecting appropriate conditions
for avoiding water being present in the polymeric adhesive
material during cure as suggested by Erickson, certainly one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a substrate,
which is in contact with that adhesive, that has a low moisture
content, including moisture contents within the ranges claimed.
Morever, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
the teachings of Erickson to employ curing conditions such that
moisture would remain low in the substrate onto which the
adhesive is applied, as variously claimed at herein. We note
that the Examples of Erickson describe 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
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007