Appeal 2007-2144
Application 10/147,015
the pressure-sensitive adhesive backing layer of the type suggested in Seth,
motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the
advantages taught by Leir. Moreover, from the above teachings, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the claimed
release coating taught by Leir has the claimed minimal penetration property
from the teachings of Leir discussed above (Leir teaches that its release
coating has a high degree of difunctionality with little contamination from
monofunctional or nonfunctional siloxane impurities and is film-forming).
See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (“The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.”). In any event, the desired
penetration property is an additional advantage that would have naturally
flowed from following the suggestion of Leir. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ
58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (holding that the recognition of another advantage
flowing naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be
the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise be obvious),
Accordingly, based on the factual findings set forth in the Answer and
above, we determine that that the preponderance of evidence weighs most
heavily in favor obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ORDER
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the Examiner is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013