Appeal No. 96-3938
Application No. 08/288,861
As indicated earlier, however, we will sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 10 through 25
since, in our view, Debier would have suggested an adhesive
composition of the type defined by these claims.
In support of his contrary view, the appellant argues
that “[t]he claimed adhesive compositions of the present
invention have been claimed as displaying a range of
criticality of 75 < [S] + [V] < 100 undemonstrated in the
prior art, particularly the Debier . . . patent” (brief, page
5). This argument is unpersuasive. Rather than attempt to
interpret the appellant’s meaning in his use of the term
“undemonstrated”, we simply point out that the test for
obviousness is what the reference teachings would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In
this regard, it is significant that the content concentrations
defined by the independent claims on appeal are disclosed by
Debier (e.g., see claims 1 and 3 of the patent). Moreover,
patentee’s 35% styrene content and his 45% butadiene content
satisfy the formula set forth in these appealed independent
claims notwithstanding the appellant’s apparent belief to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007