Appeal No. 96-3938
Application No. 08/288,861
contrary. These circumstances lead us to conclude that the
content and formula features defined by the appellant’s
independent claims at least would have been suggested by
Debier. Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105, 1106-1107 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993).
The appellant also argues that he “has presented clearly
novel compositions in the adhesive compositions having a vinyl
aromatic hydrocarbon content [S] of the instant block
copolymers of 35% to 50% (claim 19), and of 40% to 50% (claims
11 [sic, 12] and 21)” (brief, page 6). From our perspective,
the 35% content of claim 19 is not novel and certainly not
nonobvious in light of Debier’s aforementioned disclosure. Ex
parte Lee, id. Further, while the 40% content of claims 12
and 21 may be novel, it is our view that such a content would
have been suggested by
Debier’s teaching of “about 35%” (again see patent claim 1),
and the appellant’s brief contains no reasonably specific
arguments to the contrary.
Finally, it is argued by the appellant that “the claimed
block copolymer of the present invention is necessarily linear
in claim 17 and branched in claim 18, unlike the clearly
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007