Appeal No. 1996-1735
Application No. 08/184,526
The examiner takes the position that “it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to eliminate
the polymercaptan and polyene as well as their function” so
that the amine terminated polyamide and the epoxide resin can
be used as a latent activatable composite. See Answer, page
5. The examiner however, has not explained why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have removed essential
ingredients of the adhesive described in Garnish. Nor has the
examiner identify the functions being eliminated by the
removal of these essential ingredients.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 3 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Garnish.
As a final point, we note that the Weiss reference at
page 2 refers to U.S. Patent Nos. 3,261,882, 3,448,742 and
3,636,657, which are said to describe a composite comprising
an epoxide resin and a curing agent selected from amines,
amine derivatives and substituted amines. Upon return of this
application, the examiner should review the contents of the
above-mentioned patents to determine whether they affect the
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007