Appeal 2007-1848
Application 10/131,178
the APA in view of Tsujimoto and Lu, which claims stand or fall together as
a group.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are convinced that the Examiner’s rejection is
supported by the prior art evidence relied upon and in accord with current
patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
The Examiner contends that the prior art suggests that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut partially through the
adhesive layer of an adherend without cutting the base material thereof.
Appellants contend the applied combination of prior art does not
suggest the claimed cutting without cutting the base material.
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner reasonably determined that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to perform a method for
thermally releasing an adherend, which comprises the steps of: cutting an
adherend adhered to a thermally releasable pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet
without cutting the base material within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would
have been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013