Appeal No. 95-2011
Application No. 07/959,011
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Shih and Skeist. We also
reverse this rejection.
Claim 12 is directed to a contact adhesive comprising the
latex composition of claim 1 and a tackifier. Shih discloses
latex compositions prepared by a core-shell multistage
polymerization process (col. 1, lines 9-11). The latex
compositions disclosed in Shih are useful as laminating
adhesives (col. 1, lines 24-31).
According to the examiner (Answer, pp. 7-8):
Compositionally, the adhesive of Shih’s Example
4 differs from that of appealed claim 12 only in
that a tackifier is not included. However, Skeist
shows that it is well known that acrylic polymers
can be used as laminating as well as contact
adhesives. . . . Skeist also teaches that contact
adhesives require immediate and high bond strength.
. . . Further, Skeist teaches that tackifiers may
be added to acrylics to achieve high tack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add a tackifier into
the laminating adhesive of Shih’s example in order
to increase the tack properties thereof, motivated
by a reasonable expectation of success.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007