Appeal No. 96-3584
Application No. 08/267,877
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Armstrong, Jr. 3,935,053 Jan. 27, 1976
Shimizu et al. (Shimizu) 5,061,550 Oct. 29, 1991
Epoxy Resins: Chemistry and Technology pp. 683-91 and 1089-95
(Clayton A. May ed., 2d ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc.) (May)
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an adhesive
composition comprising (A) at least one phenolic resole resin
and the reaction product of (B-1) at least one difunctionally
epoxy resin, such as a bisphenol A epoxy resin, and (B-2) at
least one compound represented by the recited formulae, such
as resorcinol.
Appealed claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over May. Claims 8-11, 13, 15, 17 and
19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Shimizu in view of May. In addition, claims 8-19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shimizu and May in further view of Armstrong.
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we
concur with appellant that the prior art applied by the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007