Appeal No. 1997-1604
Application No. 08/273,688
On this record, the appellants have proffered no evidence
that Scanley’s finished compositions do not possess the
pourability and viscosity characteristics defined by their
composition claims. It is appropriate, therefore, to sustain
the Section 102 and Section 103 rejections over Scanley of
these composition claims 12 through 14 and 18.
On the other hand, the Section 102 and Section 103
rejections based upon Mallya as the primary reference cannot
be sustained. This is because the applied prior art contains
no teaching or suggestion of the polymer solids concentrations
required by appealed claims 1 through 16 and 18 . Further, 3
Mallya contains no teaching or suggestion of the specific
method defined by appealed claim 17 including step b thereof.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s Section 102 or Section 103 rejections of claims 1
through 14 over Mallya alone or further in view of Kirk-Othmer
3The examiner’s apparent belief (see the first full
paragraph on page 15 of the Answer) that Mallya discloses such
concentrations at column 6, lines 9-18, is clearly erroneous.
The percentages referred to in this disclosure relate to
adhesive coating not polymer solids.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007