Appeal 2007-2144
Application 10/147,015
exists when the prior art and claimed ranges do not overlap bur are close
enough such that one skill in the art would have reasonably expected to have
the same properties.)
Given the above findings, we determine that substantial evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that Seth teaches or would have suggested a
porous backing layer containing the claimed fiber content. This is
especially true in this case since Leir relied upon by the Examiner further
teaches at page 9, ll. 19-30, that its release coating, unlike other release
coatings, can provide desired adherence strengths, thereby suggesting the
employment of the release coating taught by Leir to avoid the very problem
associated with the strong adherence discussed in Seth.
The Appellants contend that Seth and Leir would not have suggested
employing the claimed specific water dispersible polyorganosiloxane-
polyurea block copolymer release coatings, i.e., thermoplastic silicon-
containing polymers incapable of penetrating into more than the top 20% of
the backing material (e.g., Br. 6-9 and Reply Br. 2) . We do not agree.
As correctly found by the Examiner, Seth teaches employing
conventional release coatings on the top surface of its pressure sensitive
adhesive backing layer (Answer 3). Although Seth does not specify using
the claimed specific water dispersible polyorganosiloxane-polyurea block
copolymers as its release coating, there is no dispute that Leir teaches at
page 5 such water dispersible organopolysiloxane polyurea block
copolymers. Compare Answer 3 and Leir, p. 5, l. 4 to p. 6, l. 13, with
Appellants’ narrow claim 9. We find that Leir further teaches at page 7, ll.
1-7, and page 9, ll. 8-13 and 19-30, that:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013