Appeal No. 95-0999
Application 07/925,347
mixing them so that they can be used as an adhesive/sealant.
Both Gillis and Cassidy also place the same components in
separate containers before mixing them for the purpose of
preparing polymers by reaction injection molding processes.
See, e.g., column 20, lines 49-52. While the system of
Gillis or Cassidy is used for a purpose different than
appellants’, we find that it is identical to the claimed
system.
Appellants argue that the examiner fails to consider the
preamble of the claims on appeal. In this regard, appellants
ask us to focus on the term “adhesive/sealant”. Appellants
then go onto argue (Brief, page 12) that:
even though the present claims recite a
“composition”, the limitations in the preamble
characterizing the composition as “adhesive/sealant
reaction systems” must be considered by the
Examiner.
In so arguing, appellants themselves fail to consider the
claim preamble as a whole, including appellants own definition
of “reaction system”. As indicated supra, appellants claim
systems (not compositions) which are taught by either Gillis
or Cassidy.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007