Ex Parte Paul et al - Page 3



                Appeal 2007-0124                                                                                 
                Application 10/273,836                                                                           

                Jun. 18, 1991, as evidence of non-obviousness (e.g., Br. 4; see the Evidence                     
                Appendix attached to the Brief).                                                                 
                       Claims 1-9 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                           
                anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious                       
                over Ryan (Answer 4).  Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM this                       
                rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well                    
                as those reasons set forth below.                                                                
                                                   OPINION                                                       
                       The Examiner finds that Ryan discloses formulations comprising a                          
                styrene block copolymer in an amount within the range claimed, and                               
                polyethylene wax, also in an amount within the claimed range (Answer 4).                         
                The Examiner finds that the Specification clearly indicates that low                             
                molecular weight polyethylene waxes are suitable as waxes for the claimed                        
                invention (id., citing the Specification 5:25).  In view of these findings, the                  
                Examiner finds that the composition disclosed by Ryan is “substantially                          
                identical” to the claimed hot melt adhesive (id.).  Therefore, the Examiner                      
                concludes that there is a “reasonable basis” for believing that the claimed                      
                properties, not explicitly disclosed by Ryan, are “inherently possessed” by                      
                the reference compositions (id.).2  Accordingly, the Examiner believes the                       
                burden of proof has been shifted to Appellants (id.).                                            

                                                                                                                
                2 The Examiner erroneously states that the claimed properties are “inherently                    
                possessed in Kueppers” (Answer 4).  We hold this error harmless since it is                      
                clear from the context of the rejection that the Examiner is referring to Ryan,                  
                                                       3                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013