Appeal No. 94-3575
Application 07/929,044
only that “[t]he reply brief filed August 29, 1994 has been
entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is
deemed necessary”.
The examiner does not rely on any disclosure in Petereit or
Song, and we find none, which would compensate for the above-
noted deficiencies in Sablotsky. Again, the combined disclosures
of Sablotsky, Petereit, and Song are insufficient to support a
conclusion of obviousness of claims requiring 5 to 100 weight
parts of a C -C alcohol based on 100 weight parts of the
2 3
polymer.
We further note the examiner’s statement that “Sablotsky
does not disclose the presence of a lipophilic monomer unit”.
See the Examiner’s Answer, page 3, first paragraph. In this
regard, independent claim 1 recites “a polymer having lipophilic
monomer units and hydrophilic monomer units in a weight ratio in
the range from 98:2 to 0:100", i.e., claim 1 does not require
lipophilic monomer units. Furthermore, the examiner’s statement
is factually incorrect because Sablotsky discloses adhesives
containing about 5 to about 20% by weight of a C to C alkyl4 12
acrylate. See Sablotsky, column 5, lines 52 through 59. Compare
the instant specification, page 5, last paragraph, disclosing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007