Appeal No. 96-1720
Application 08/389,520
THE REJECTION
Claims 2-5 and 15-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Erickson, Udipi and Howell, Jr.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the specification,
preliminary amendment, first Office action, amendment in
response to the first Office action, final rejection, appeal
brief, examiner’s answer, and references of record. We find,
based upon our review of these documents, that appellants’
claims are unclear to the extent that the determination of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter in view of prior art
disclosures is not possible. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection.
Appellants claim a crosslinked coating (claim 15), a
crosslinked adhesive (claims 16-20) and a crosslinked sealant
(claims 21-25), each of which comprises a dispersion which is
applied to a substrate. We give the terms in appellants’
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with appellants’ specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007