Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
Examiner’s concern with the examples in the present record and the showings
presented in the Declaration of Romano included in Appendix II of Appellant’s
Brief (See the Examiner’s discussion of the examples and the Declaration, Final
Rej. 6-8). Appellant has not established that the invention specified by the
appealed claims are commensurate with the showing of unexpected results. That
is, Appellant has not established that the adhesive properties of the Kawano
invention are patentably distinct from the adhesive properties of the presently
claimed invention. While Appellant has provided a lengthy discussion of an
alleged difference between “laminate adhesion” and “adhesion,” such discussion
does not provide a basis for patentable distinction between the invention of
Kawano and the presently appealed claims.
Appellant’s discussion of the examples in the specification and the results
provided in Table II of the specification are not persuasive. The Specification does
not provide information sufficient to determine the difference between a peel force
described as excellent versus a peel force described as poor. Moreover, this
terminology does not provide an indication as to where the laminate failure
occurred. That is, there is no indication as to whether the laminate failure occurred
between the overcoat layer and the adjacent underling substrate or some other
intervening layer. As such, these examples are insufficient to establish a
distinction even if we were to use Appellant’s definition of “laminate adhesion.”
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, the rejection of claims
1, 3, 7-15, and 19-22 under § 103(a) as obvious over Kawano is affirmed.
Claims 1 and 4 to 6 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combined teachings of Kawano and Tomizawa. The Examiner relies on the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007