Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
Claims 1, 3, 7-15 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kawano. We affirm for the reasons presented in the Answer and add the
following.4
Appellant argues Kawano fails to disclose or suggest a laminate adhesion
promoting overcoat layer containing acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol which
provides better laminate adhesion. Appellant also argues that Kawano fails to
mention the property laminate adhesion. Finally, Appellant argues that even
assuming a prima facie case has been made, the present invention provides
surprising results (Br. 15-16).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the phrase “laminate adhesion” are not
persuasive for the reasons set forth in our previous discussion of the Kawano
reference. We note Appellant has failed to argue that Kawano does not provide a
hydrophilic absorbing layer that comprises acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol.
Rather, Appellant argues that the polyvinyl alcohol of Kawano must be used in
conjunction with an amphoteric latex (Br. 16). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because the present claim language includes the transitional term
“comprising.” This language allows for the addition of other components to be
used in conjunction with the acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol. Appellant’s
discussion of the examples of Kawano which allegedly provide inferior results in
strength and water resistance are not persuasive. Appellant has not limited the
present invention to any particular strength and/or water resistant characteristics.
As such, the results achieved by Kawano do not serve to provide a patentable
distinction between Kawano and the present invention. Further, we also share the
4 We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007