Appeal No. 2006-0994
Application No. 09/898,969
Appellant argues that the examiner has not identified any teaching, suggestion or
motivation to combine Everaerts with Ragland and De Santis to arrive at the claimed
invention (Brief, page 5).3 Appellant argues that Everaerts discloses the use of an
adhesive to mount a device to a surface while Ragland, on the other hand, is directed to
the problem of inadequate bond strength that results from conventional lamination of a
layer of PSA to a silicone foam sheet (id.). Appellants further argue that the use of an
adhesive to mount a device to a surface is not indicative of the structural integrity of a
tape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to combine an adhesive for
adhering objects to surfaces with devices having adhesives directed to improving bond
strength within the device (Brief, page 6).
3
3 We note that appellant does not contest or dispute any of
the specific factual findings made by the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007