Appeal 2006-2307
Application 10/370,686
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 21
Appellant relies on the same arguments as presented against the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-20 and 23 and do not
otherwise contest the Examiner’s separately stated rejection of claim 21. In
this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the particle size distribution
limitation has been acknowledged to allow for a broad particle size range
and does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed pressure sensitive
adhesive-containing product from the products suggested by JP05-271645
(Answer 5 and 7). It follows that we shall also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 21 for reasons stated above and in the answer.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 22
Appellant relies on the same arguments as presented against the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-20 and 23 and we do not find
those arguments persuasive for reasons stated above. Appellant also
maintains that Brown employs a normally tacky (at room temperature)
adhesive. Therefore, Appellant contends that it would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the pressure sensitive
adhesive of JP05-271645 with the release liner of Brown in order to obtain a
product corresponding to the claim 22 product. However, we disagree with
that unsubstantiated attorney’s argument in that Appellant has not fairly
articulated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of a
release paper as taught by Brown to lack combinability with the pressure
sensitive adhesives of JP05-271645. In this regard, while we are mindful
that Otsuki does not require a mold release liner, JP05-271645 does not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007