Ex parte ST. CLAIR - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-0282                                                        
          Application No. 08/423,438                                                  



               Claim 16, the sole claim on appeal, reads as follows.                  
               16.       A moisture curable, isocyanate-capped                        
               hydroxy-functionalized selectively hydrogenated block                  
                    copolymer of a vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon and a                   
          conjugated     diene.                                                       
               As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the                 
          following prior art:                                                        
          Gergen et al. (Gergen)   4,578,429                Mar. 25,                  
          1986                                                                        
          Markevka et al. (Markevka)       4,820,368        Apr. 11,                  
          1989                                                                        
               Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                      
          unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Gergen and                    
          Markevka.                                                                   
               We reverse.                                                            
               Having reviewed the specification, claim and applied                   
          prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the                   
          examiner and appellant in support of their positions, we agree              
          with appellant that the applied prior art as a whole would not              
          have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious within the                 
          meaning of 35 U.S.C.                                                        
           103.  Our reasons for this determination follow.                          
               The examiner states, and appellant does not dispute, that              

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007