Appeal No. 1996-2398
Application 08/140,840
reference(s), taking into account appellant’s argument and evidence of nonobviousness, in order to
maintain the rejection based on the reference(s). See generally Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445-46, 24
USPQ2d at 1444-45. We find on this record that the examiner has not established by scientific
reasoning or evidence that, given the ingredients and resulting high gel content of the emulsion
polymerized PSAs of Bernard pointed to by appellant, one of ordinary skill in this art would still have
reasonably expected that the addition of the chain transfer agent in the amounts taught in the reference
would reduce the gel content taught of the emulsion polymerized PSAs of the reference to “no more
than about 2%” as specified in claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection of the appealed claims over Bernard because
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007