Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
the term adhesion includes failure occurring between a layer and an adjacent layer.
As such, the description provided by the Appellant for the disputed language does
not provide a patentable distinction. Appellant has not directed us to evidence that
establishes that laminate adhesion excludes the substrate from being in contact
with the adhesion promoting overcoat layer. Thus, Appellant’s definition for
laminate adhesion does not distinguish the claimed ink recording element form the
cited prior art.
Appellant’s reference to ASTM test method D 3359-02 does not provide a
distinct definition for the phrase “laminate adhesion.” Moreover, the test method
D 3359-02 “cover procedures for assessing the adhesion of coating films to
metallic substrates by applying and removing pressure-sensitive tape over cuts
made in the film.” (P. 1: 1.1). Appellant has not established that metallic
substrates are at issue in the present invention. Thus, the relevance of this
document to the present invention is unclear. Appellant’s reference to Appendix
XI.3.2 is also been noted. This section discusses the specific test method of D
3359-02 and particularly the adhesion failure and mat substrate articles, however,
there is no specific definition given for “laminate adhesion.” For the reasons set
forth above as well as those presented in the Answer, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellant has not established a special meaning for the phrase “laminate
adhesion” which provides a patentable distinction between the ink recording
element described in Kawano and the claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007