Appeal No. 1996-1735
Application No. 08/184,526
scope with the claimed subject matter, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Determining patentability on the totality of record,
after due consideration of appellants’ arguments and evidence,
we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 4 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the Weiss reference.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Garnish. We find that Garnish teaches using an
adhesive having an epoxide resin, a polymercaptan, a polyene
and a curing agent for the epoxide resin. See column 1, lines
43-50. This mixture, according to Garnish, is used as a
latent activatable composite (one pack system) only when a
tertiary amine is used as a curing agent. See column 9, lines
54-68. When an amine terminated polyamide is used as a curing
agent, Garnish does not teach, nor would have suggested, using
the adhesive mixture as a latent activatable composite (one
pack system). Id.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007