Appeal 2007-0124
Application 10/273,836
Appellants argue that only Table III of Ryan describes hot melt
adhesives, and this Table is identical to Table 1 of Malcolm, US 5,024,667,
which is cited by Ryan at col. 12, l. 19 (Br. 4). Appellants argue that Ryan
is silent as to application temperatures,3 and thus fails to disclose or suggest
an adhesive formulation that can be applied at low temperatures, i.e., below
about 120ºC. (id.; see also Br. 5). Appellants further argue that Malcolm
does disclose application temperatures for the identical hot melt adhesives
taught by Ryan, and discloses that the adhesives can be applied at
temperatures of about 250ºF to 325ºF. (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the
Examiner (Answer 5), the claims are not limited to a hot melt adhesive
formulation that can be applied at temperatures below about 120ºC.
Furthermore, the term “low application temperature hot melt adhesive
formulation” is defined contrary to Appellants’ arguments, i.e., this term is
limited to “formulations that can be applied at temperatures below about
130ºC” (Specification 4:1-2). Application temperatures below about 130ºC
are clearly within the scope of the disclosure of Malcolm. Additionally,
Malcolm teaches an application temperature for these hot melt adhesives of
“a temperature of about 250º-325ºF” (Malcolm, col. 10, ll. 34-35, italics
added). Since 250ºF equals 121ºC, and the term “about” indicates some
not the withdrawn reference to Kueppers, US 5,939,483 (final Office action
dated Apr. 25, 2005, p. 2, ¶3).
3 This statement by Appellants is incorrect since Ryan does exemplify an
application temperature of 275ºF. (135ºC.) (Ryan, col. 14, l. 32).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013