Appeal No. 1996-0837
Application 08/603,014
The examiner has based his conclusion of obviousness on the teachings of
Couturier and Cleveland. Couturier discloses hot melt gasket compositions comprising “a
copolymer of ethylene and an olefinic carboxylic acid . . . a modifier resin, filler and
antioxidant.” Courturier, col. 1, lines 45-52. Couturier further discloses that the hot melt
gasket composition has superior cracking and cut through resistance and is useful for
closures such as warehoused products and pasteurized food stuffs which are subjected to
elevated temperatures and/or excessive headload pressures. Id., col. 4, lines 56-66.
Cleveland discloses improved polyolefin-based shielding tapes (in the form of a plastic
laminated metallic foil) for use in insulating underground electric cables. Cleveland, col. 2,
lines 17-24 and 26-30. The shielding tape provides an electrostatic shield and moisture
barrier to the cables. Id. According to the examiner, “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art motivated to improve the adhesion of the composition taught by
Courturier et al. to add an epoxy resin as an adhesion promoter, because Cleveland et al.
teaches [sic, teach] epoxy resins improve the adhesion of the active adhesive ingredient,
the copolymer, in this composition.” Answer, p. 3. We find that the examiner’s position
lacks merit.
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007