Ex Parte Kline

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 1, 2010

11259681 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/259,681 10/26/2005 James R. Kline M-662 5113
63721 7590 07/02/2010
Avery Dennison Corporation
170 MONARCH LANE
MIAMISBURG, OH 45342
EXAMINER
CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES R. KLINE
____________________

Appeal 2009-009199
Application 11/259,681
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 3-7, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-009199
Application 11/259,681

2
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of making a narrow
composite RFID strap web for use in forming radio frequency identification
(RFID) transponders. Such transponders include chips connected to
antennas. The chip resides on a strap. The inventive process involves
laminating a wide strap web to a wide composite adhesive web and slitting
the laminated composite web into narrow composite strap webs. Claim 3 is
illustrative:
3. Method of making narrow composite RFID strap webs,
comprising:

providing a wide strap web having RFID straps in longitudinally
extending columns along the wide strap web and in transversely extending
rows across the wide strap web,

providing a wide, flexible, carrier web having opposite first and
second sides wherein at least the first side is coated with a release coating
with thermoplastic adhesive applied onto the release coating on the first side
and wherein the release coating on the first side is between the carrier web
and the adhesive to form a wide composite adhesive web, wherein the
adhesive contains electrically conductive particles,

laminating the wide composite adhesive web to the wide strap web
with the adhesive against the wide strap web to provide a wide composite
strap web, and the adhesive being heated sufficiently to adhere the adhesive
to the wide strap web, and

slitting the wide composite strap web longitudinally into narrow
composite strap webs.

The Examiner maintains, and Appellant seeks review of, the
following rejections:
Appeal 2009-009199
Application 11/259,681

3
REJECTION I: Claims 3, 4, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Green (US 2003/0136503 A1,
pub. Jul. 24, 2003) in view of the admitted prior art (Spec. 1:13 to 2:17) and
Chheang (US 2003/0100654 A1, May 29, 2003).
REJECTION II: Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Green, the admitted prior art, Chheang, and
Nelson (US 6,333,073 B1, Dec. 25, 2001).
II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
Has the Examiner provided sufficient evidence that the combination
of Green, admitted prior art, and Chheang suggests laminating a composite
adhesive web having a carrier web/release coating/adhesive layer
configuration to the RFID webstock of Green?
We answer this question in the negative.
III. DISCUSSION
The method of the claims requires that a wide composite adhesive
web of a specific structure be laminated to a wide strap web of RFID straps.
Specifically, the composite adhesive web must have a carrier web with a first
side coated with a release coating with adhesive applied to the release
coating. In other words, the release coating is situated between the adhesive
and the carrier web.
Green teaches a method of applying RFID chips onto antenna using
conductive inks or adhesives applied to the antenna web (Green, ¶ [0061]).
While Green discloses slitting a webstock of RFID straps into a series of
longitudinal lanes to transform a wide strap web into a narrow strap web
before the joining step, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3, citing Green ¶
Appeal 2009-009199
Application 11/259,681

4
[0078]), Green does not disclose applying a wide adhesive composite web to
the wide strap web.
The portion of the Specification relied upon by the Examiner as
disclosing admitted prior art states that "it is common to provide the straps in
a wide web . . . . These wide strap webs have some residual adhesive on
their electrically conductive side resulting from the manufacturing process
and accordingly these wide strap webs are co-wound with an adhesive.”
This portion of the Specification further states that “[a]lternatively, an
electrically conductive tape can be co-wound with the strap web.” (Spec.
2:7-17.) Therefore is no mention of including a release liner.
Chheang discloses an electrically conductive tape with an adhesive
composition on a backing. The tape may be stored in a roll form with or
without the use of a release liner to protect the adhesive (Chheang, ¶
[0115]).
According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a well known method of protecting an
adhesive layer, such as using a release liner as taught by Chheang, because
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the added benefit of
protecting the adhesive and ensuring that the web of material doesn't stick to
itself while in roll form.” (Ans. 5.)
However, we agree with Appellant that there is no teaching in
Chheang of having any adhesive on a release coating so that the adhesive
can be dispensed from a carrier web and adhered to a strap web (Br. 14). In
the claimed invention, the release coating is sandwiched between the
adhesive and the carrier web. The release coating does not serve to protect
Appeal 2009-009199
Application 11/259,681

5
the adhesive, rather the adhesive remains an exposed layer. If one were to
apply the release liner to protect the adhesive as suggested by Chheang, one
would not bury the release linear between the adhesive layer and carrier
layer. Applying the teachings as suggested by the prior art does not result in
the claimed invention.
With regard to the second rejection, which adds Nelson as evidence of
obviousness, we note that Nelson does not cure the deficiencies discussed
above.
IV. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we do not sustain the rejections maintained
by the Examiner.

V. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

cam

AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION
170 MONARCH LANE
MIAMISBURG OH 45342