Appeal No. 1996-0670
Application No. 08/043,388
examiner states that the same classes of siloxane are
admittedly used by Sackoff as are employed by appellant and
this would apparently insure that, when using a mixture of
such siloxanes, the same results would be obtained (Answer,
page 5).
Sackoff discloses that “the material used to decrease the
‘zero minute peel value’ is a polysiloxane and must be capable
of being intimately mixed and dispersed throughout the
pressure sensitive adhesive.” (column 2, lines 42-45).
Sackoff specifically discloses five classes of polysiloxane
materials that produce the “desired advantageous properties”
(column 13, line 59; the classes of materials are listed at
column 13, line 60-column 14, line 38). We agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to
combine two known materials, each of which was taught by
Sackoff to be useful to produce advantageous properties when
page 6 of the Answer). It is apparent that the examiner
stated the correct USPQ citation but meant to cite In re
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)
for the “principle” that it would have been obvious to combine
two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to
be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third
composition to be used for the very same purpose. See
Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850, 205 USPQ at 1072.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007