Appeal No. 1999-2511
Application 08/847,414
as including zero% of the isocyanate resin, there would not be a
mixture of the recited resins. Accordingly, “less than” can not
include zero% in this case. See In re Kirsch, 498 F.2d 1389,
1393-94, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974). Furthermore, when the
claim is read in light of the specification, positive amounts of
isocyanate resin must be present in order to produce the claimed
peel strengths. See the specification, pages 24-26, and In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Therefore we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Additionally, the examiner has not provided any convincing
evidence or reasons to show the motivation or teaching to combine
the references as proposed in the rejection. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). The examiner has not presented any convincing evidence or
reasoning to support the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to select an adhesive which has increased peel strength
at below heat-transfer temperatures but low peel strengths at
higher temperatures (Answer, page 6). As found by the examiner,
Parker only teaches a peel strength at heat transfer temperatures
with no teaching or suggestion as to peel strength at room
temperatures (Answer, page 5). Furthermore, Parker is directed
to peel strengths necessary for easy removal of the heat-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007