Appeal No. 96-3933
Application 07/829,899
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Frazee, like appellants, discloses a latex composition that is used as a pressure
sensitive adhesive. Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual determination that the
latex of Frazee comprises appellants' reaction product of claimed components (i), (ii), (iii),
as well as component (v). Also, although the Frazee composition does not contain the
presently claimed ionic copolymer surfactant, appellants do not take issue with the
examiner's legal conclusion that "[i]t would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have
used the surfactant taught in the WO '618 reference in the latex disclosed in Frazee based
on the disclosure in WO '618 that the surfactant can be used in any conventional latex
product. (Page 4 of answer). Rather, it is appellants' contention that the composition of
Frazee does not include the claimed hydrophobic polymer (ingredient (iv)). According to
appellants, Frazee does not teach the use of a hydrophobic polymer as defined in the
present specification, i.e. a water insoluble polymer. Appellants focus upon the Frazee
disclosure that the corresponding resin "must be soluble or dispersible either in water or in
an alkaline solution." (Col. 5, lines 26 and 27).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007