Appeal 2007-1848
Application 10/131,178
partially or completely to divide the adhesive sections under each adherend
from one another (col. 7, ll. 19-59).
Appellants argue that the prior art does not suggest the claimed
cutting without cutting the base material. Appellants argue that the prior art
must suggest the modification. Appellants further argue the UV reactive
system of Lu does not provide motivation for and teaches away from
modifying the thermally reactive system of the APA and Tsujimoto (Br. 9-
10; Reply Br. 4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above,
Tsujimoto and Lu both describe the reaction of a substrate, thermally or with
UV, for removal of an adherend from a substrate that has been partially cut.
As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected
success in partially cutting the adhesive sheet of the APA and Tsujimoto in
sections without cutting through the entire base layer of the sheet.
As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejections, we note that
Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013