Appeal No. 1996-1878
Application No. 07/982,203
The examiner seems to appreciate that Gilch, the primary
reference in all three rejections, fails to teach appellant's
adhesive composition. We say this because the examiner sets
forth that it is his position that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in this art to employ the adhesive
compositions documented in Rumon et al[.] and König
et al[.], respectively, in the Gilch et al[.]
process in place of the corresponding, analogous
adhesive employed therein; mere substitution of one
known moisture curable hot melt polyurethane
adhesive for another involved. [Page 5 of Answer].
Indeed, the adhesive of Gilch is not formed by reacting poly-
propylene glycol. Rather, the adhesive of Gilch is formed by
reacting a diisocyanate, a hydroxyl polyester and a mono-
functional reactant, such as a primary alcohol.
However, the flaw in the examiner's reasoning is that
even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the adhesive
compositions of Rumon and König were the same as the adhesive
compositions within the scope of the appealed claims, they
would not have suggested the requisite modification to Gilch's
method of bonding to arrive at the claimed method. The claims
presently on appeal define a method of bonding a sole to a
shoe upper that comprises the three steps of providing the
heat-softened adhesive, pressing the sole and shoe upper
together, and cooling the adhesive. As urged by appellant,
the method of Gilch is quite different. While Gilch discloses
the steps of applying the hot melt adhesive, pressing together
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007