Appeal No. 97-3608
Application 08/533,640
are not sufficient to satisfy the examiner's burden of providing
the requisite factual basis and establishing the requisite
motivation to support the obviousness conclusion. The
modification of the Harada disclosure proposed by the examiner is
contrary to the express teaching of Harada that the diene polymer
must be present as a main ingredient and would render the
composition useless for its intended purpose of producing an air
permeable laminated sheet. If a proposed modification would
render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation
to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Nor do the references relied on by the examiner disclose or
suggest a polymeric roofing membrane sealed to a roof-deck with
the adhesive composition of claim 12 to provide a water-tight
seal. We also agree with appellants that none of the references
teach or suggest the claimed ratio of isocyanate groups to
hydroxyl groups for the reasons pointed out by appellants on page
11 of the brief and page 2 of the reply brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007