Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
cold resistance properties” (Answer para. bridging 8 and 9). See In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Compare
In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907, 175 USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972).
Appellants argue that “Watanabe is completely silent as to the use of
. . . [a terpene phenol] tackifier” (Br. 5). While Appellants’ argument is
accurate, the argument does not support a non-obviousness conclusion since,
as we noted above, the Examiner relies on Daughenbaugh to address this
specific claim feature.
Appellants argue that Daughenbaugh’s terpenes “are not terpene
phenols” (Br. 6). We note that Daughenbaugh expressly refers to its
tackifier compositions as “vinyl-substituted aromatic/terpene/phenol
terpolymers” (col. 1, ll. 11-12). Daughenbaugh’s compositions require
“at least one monoterpene hydrocarbon” and “at least one phenol” (col. 1,
ll. 25-29). As noted by the Examiner, Appellants’ statement that
Daughenbaugh’s terpenes are not terpene phenols is unsupported by any
evidence or argument controverting Daughenbaugh’s disclosure (Answer 9).
Thus, we are unconvinced by Appellants’ argument.
Appellants also argue that “there is no disclosure or suggestion that
the tackifiers of Daughenbaugh, let alone terpene phenols, could be used in
the hot melt compositions of Watanabe without affecting the characteristics
of the adhesive” (Br. 6). However, as correctly noted by the Examiner,
Daughenbaugh clearly teaches the use of his terpene phenol tackifiers in hot
melt adhesives comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers in col. 3,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013