Appeal No. 2006-1850
Application 10/039,103
Another hermetically sealed cellular reflective sheeting that could benefit
from improved bond strength between a cover film and base sheet is so-called
“cube-corner” sheeting. Some varieties of cube-corner sheeting include a clear,
transparent base sheet having a flat front surface, which serves as the front face of
the sheeting, and a rear surface configured with cube-corner elements. A cover
film is desired at the rear of the sheeting to maintain an air-interface for the cube-
corner elements and also to provide a flat rear surface for bonding the sheeting to
a substrate. A network of bonds as described above is potentially useful to hold
the cover film to the base sheet, but again these bonds should provide a more
lasting hermetic seal than has been available in the past.
McGrath actually teaches the reasons, better expressed here than by the examiner,
for modifying the prior art approaches to forming cube-corner sheeting in addition to the
discussion in the Summary of the Invention at column 2, particularly the discussion in the
latter paragraphs of this column. The punch line of the Summary of the Invention at
column 3, lines 2 through 4 states that “the improved adherence between the cover sheet
and base sheet provides a significant advance in cellular retroreflective sheeting.” The
cube corner sheeting approach depicted in figure 6 through 8 actually shows respectively
separate cover sheets 29 and 37 which have respective bonds 34 and 35. These portions
of McGrath show the advantages which are further discussed beginning at column 5, line
66 through column 6, line 26.
The reply brief takes issue with the examiner’s responsive arguments in the
answer. A part of the examiner’s reasoning is explained at page 2 of the reply brief that
applying the seal film of McGrath to the metalized sheeting of Phillips would provide an
air interface at the cube corner elements to reduce the material use of the film as set forth
at page 8 of the answer. Appellants characterize the examiner’s positions as indicating
that the claimed air interface would be at the metal coating which is on top of the cube
corner elements. Indeed, the embodiments in the various portions of figures 2 and 3 of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007