Appeal 2006-2343
Application 10/246,620
shown at 6 rather than 16 in Fig. 1)).3 Specifically with regard to the cut,
Keller describes that “the die cut 18 be a ‘kiss cut’ which partially severs the
ribbon product 10 enough to allow manual separation therealong, but does
not sever the back strip 16.” One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that sentence, in the context of the full disclosure of Keller, to
mean that only the back strip is not cut. This is particularly the case in view
of the disclosure in column 5, discussing embodiments where the die cuts
extend beyond the adhesive covered area of the ribbon. That portion of
Keller states:
Accordingly, it is evident that some portion of the die cuts 18
extend through the thickness of the ribbon and any underlying
adhesive layer that the die cuts intercept, and that other portions
of the die cuts extend only through the thickness of the ribbon
where there is no underlying adhesive to be intercepted by the
die cuts.
(Keller, col. 5, ll. 27-34). Even if it where not clear that Keller cuts through
both the ribbon and adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to so cut in order to allow easy manual separation from the
backing and to prevent tearing during the peeling process.
With regard to the requirement of contaminants or defects in the tape,
the Examiner acknowledges that Keller does not discuss contaminants and
defects as being present, but the Examiner finds that the claim does not
require the presence of contaminants or defects in the product because the
claim encompasses embodiments in which the action of punching the tape
removes the contaminant or defect (Answer 3). Our review indicates that
such embodiments in which the contaminants or defects are removed by
3 Note that back strip 16 is shown in Figure 3D in an analogous arrangement
to element “6” in Figure 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007