Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The subject matter of
claim 13 specifies that it has least two film sheets. This does not preclude
the use of an additional thermoplastic sheet. Furthermore, as disclosed in
the present Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that fluororesin films are suitable for bonding under heat and
pressure (Specification 1-2). Jarvis discloses that the substrates to be joined
are placed in communication with the tape structure where heat and pressure
are applied to seal the materials.
(C) The rejection over Jarvis in combination with Inaba and Lankof.
Claims 13-14 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarvis in combination with Inaba and Lankof.7
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Appellants argue that none of the applied
prior art discloses or suggests the claimed subject matter (Br. 10).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's basis of rejecting the claims. Specifically, Appellants have not
addressed why the Lankof reference would not have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art the suitability of using a hydrophilic layer on a
fluororesin film as proposed by the Examiner.
Regarding claims 23-26, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The present record establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
recognizes that film sheets can be bound together to form a wide sheet (See
7 We have already addressed the limitations of claims 13 and 14 in our
discussion of the previous rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013