Appeal No. 2002-2317
Application No. 09/025,607
technical reasoning which shows that any of the EP ‘082 hot melt
adhesives is a pressure sensitive adhesive, or explained how
EP ‘082 would have fairly suggested a hot melt pressure sensitive
adhesive to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hence, the examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 over EP ‘082. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-22, 24, 28 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over EP ‘082.
Claims 45-48
The appellants state that claims 45 and 46 stand or fall
together, as do claims 47 and 48 (brief, page 10). We therefore
limit our discussion to the independent claim in each group,
i.e., claims 45 and 47. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim 45
EP ‘082 discloses a method for producing a hot-melt adhesive
having excellent adhesion (page 8), comprising providing a basic
polymer or copolymer, which reasonably appears to be a hot-melt
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007