Appeal No. 2006-0994
Application No. 09/898,969
Based on the totality of the record, including the arguments in the Brief, we affirm
all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as
those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Everaerts, Ragland and De Santis
The examiner finds that Everaerts discloses an adhesive tape comprising a core
layer and a PSA layer coated on at least one side of the core layer, where the core layer
of the reference corresponds to the backing layer of the claimed invention (Answer,
page 3).2 The examiner finds that Everaerts discloses that the core layer comprises
about 80 parts or more of an acryl alkylate monomer and up to about 20 parts of a
copolymerizable modifier monomer, while teaching that the alkyl acrylate monomers
can be formed from a mixture of two independent monomers, as can the modifier
monomers (Answer, pages 3-4). The examiner further finds that the primary reference
discloses the presence of a filler, a crosslinker, and a primer layer, although the specific
composition of the primer layer is not disclosed (Answer, page 4). Therefore the
examiner applies Ragland for its teaching of a PSA laminate comprising a silicone foam,
an acrylic PSA layer, and a urethane primer layer disposed between the foam and the
adhesive “to provide the laminate having long-term bond strength” (id.). The examiner
2
2 Since appellant does not argue the separate patentability
of any specific claim, we limit our consideration in this
rejection to independent claim 1. See 37 CFR §
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007