Appeal No. 1996-1942 12
Application No. 07/977,834
21 on the grounds of obviousness, based upon our findings above and our
construction of the claimed subject matter, we conclude that Sawai in and of
itself meets each of the limitations of the claimed subject matter. We found
supra that Sawai disclosed emulsion polymerized, acrylate monomers
encapsulated in the same materials as that of the claimed subject matter and
disclosed in the specification. We further determined that claims 15 and 21
were directed to compositions containing polymerized acrylate, or
methacrylate monomers. Finally, we found that the functional limitation at the
conclusion of both claims 15 and 21 had been expressly defined by Ruus as
nothing more than an encapsulated “pressure sensitive adhesive.” As for
claim 19, directed to polyurea walls we rely upon and adopt the position of
the examiner in the Answer at page 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 15 through 24 over
Sawai on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness respectively.
As to those rejections relying on the secondary reference to Ozono, we
rely on Sawai alone. In the discussion of each of the above rejections over Sawai, the
dispositive issue is whether appellant has had a fair opportunity to react to the thrust of
the rejection. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27
(CCPA 1976). Limiting the discussion to the evidence contained in Sawai alone does
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007