Appeal No. 96-2407
Application 08/072,210
The combined teachings of Boessler and Lundberg do not
remedy the deficiencies in Cha’s teaching and vice versa.
While Boessler and Lundberg may describe conventional methods
for preparing plastisols using block and/or graft copolymers,
the methods each describes are said to be particularly suited
to the preparation of plastisols using high-temperature
melting block copolymers which do not appear to include either
high styrene content styrene-butadiene block copolymers of the
type employed in the process appellants claim or low styrene
content sticky, elastomeric styrene-butadiene block copolymers
of the type said to be utilized by Cha. Moreover, the record
does not reasonably suggest that styrene-butadiene block
copolymers would be suitable for preparing plastisols of the
type described by Boessler and Lundberg. Neither Boessler nor
Lundberg describe styrene-butadiene copolymers. Put simply,
there is no reasonable suggestion in the combined prior art
teachings to prepare plastisols by conventional methods using
styrene-butadiene block copolymers comprising at least 40%
styrene. We find that the examiner’s rejection is based more
on impermissible hindsight than prior art teachings.
Cognizant of the deficiencies of the applied prior art
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007