Appeal 2007-2153
Application 10/304,730
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
The fatal flaw in the Examiner’s rejections is that Martinez, as urged
by Appellant, fails to teach or suggest the use of an aggressive pressure-
sensitive adhesive on the rear surface of the decorative sheet material.
Martinez specifically teaches that pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 14,
which is coated on the rear surface of both the substrate 12 and the appliqué
10, is a reusable non-permanent adhesive. Hence, Martinez uses the same
adhesive for both the background substrate and the temporary overlay.
Appellant, on the other hand, claims two distinct adhesive layers for the
decorative sheet material and the temporary support tape. While Appellant’s
claims and Specification do not place quantitative values on the adhesive
strengths of the “aggressive pressure sensitive adhesive” and the
“repositionable pressure sensitive adhesive,” we are satisfied that the
claimed subject matter, when considered as a whole in light of the
Specification, requires that the two recited adhesives be distinct in nature
and exhibit different adhesive strengths. Consequently, since Martinez
teaches only one and the same adhesive for both the background substrate
and the overlays, the Examiner’s rejection must fall.
We also find merit in Appellant’s argument that it would appear that
no release liner would be used when the background substrate and overlays
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013