Ex Parte DE KEYZER et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-0833                                                        
          Application No. 08/363,438                                                  


                    a vinyl content of at least 3 % by weight,                        
                    (b) a solid tackifying resin, and                                 
                    (c) a plasticizer,                                                
                         wherein the block copolymer has been cross-                  
                    linked without the use of a curing accelerator                    
                    through its vinyl groups by means of a reaction,                  
                    in the presence of a crosslinking catalyst, with                  
                    an organohydrogenpolysiloxane crosslinking agent                  
                    which contains at least two hydrogen atoms which                  
                    are directly bonded to a silicon atom, and wherein                
                    the plasticizer is present in an amount of from 1                 
                    to 50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of                  
                    the block copolymer.                                              
               The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:              
          Blizzard et al. (Blizzard)         4,831,080      May  16, 1989             
          Huddleston et al. (Huddleston)     4,997,709      Mar. 05, 1991             
          Miller et al. (Miller)        EP 0 443 263        Aug. 28, 1991             
          Onohara et al. (Onohara)      JP 61-60727         Mar. 28, 1986             
               The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          unpatentable over Blizzard in view of Miller and Onohara.                   
          Additionally, the appealed claims stand rejected under the same             
          section of the statute over Huddleston in view of Blizzard.                 
               We cannot sustain the stated rejections.                               
               The examiner's "primary reference" to Blizzard relied upon             
          in the first stated rejection, is cited and discussed in                    
          appellants' specification at pages 3 and 4.  Therein, Blizzard is           
          described as disclosing a composition comprising a pressure                 

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007