Appeal 2007-2144
Application 10/147,015
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”).
Applying the above principles of law to the present situation, we
determine that substantial evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the
prior art relied upon would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art to
the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. As is
apparent from the Brief, the Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Seth teaches applying a release coating on a porous backing
layer containing a fibrous material for a pressure-sensitive adhesive.
Compare Answer in its entirety with Br. and Reply Br. in their entirety.
Rather, the Appellants contend that Seth does not teach or suggest greater
than 75% of the fibers employed in forming the backing layer as having a
denier of less than 9 (Br. 9-15). In support of this contention, the Appellants
refer to Seth’s Comparative Example 3 which shows a release coating coated
backing layer made of 100% 9 denier polypropylene fibers adhering too
strongly to a pressure sensitive adhesive such that the adhesive becomes
contaminated by the fibers of the backing layer (e.g., Br. 10).
Although Seth prefers a pressure-sensitive adhesive porous baking
layer made of at least 25 percent by weight of fibers from 15 to 30 denier,
the Examiner has correctly found that it does not preclude employing a
pressure-sensitive adhesive porous backing layer having the claimed fiber
content (Answer 3 and 7). Specifically, we observe that under the
subheading “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED
EMBODIMENTS,” Seth teaches that:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013