Appeal No. 1997-0833
Application No. 08/363,438
particularly line 15. The basis for the examiner's proposed
substitution is that the random copolymers of Blizzard and the
block copolymers of Miller are recognized functional equivalents.
For factual support for this proposition, the examiner relies on
the Onohara reference.
We agree with appellants that the examiner's stated
rejection based principally on Blizzard cannot be sustained
because, as appellants emphasized in the brief, the examiner's
rejection is based on the erroneous assumption that random and
block copolymers described in the Blizzard and Miller references
respectively are functionally equivalent adhesive components.
Clearly, the Onohara reference relied upon by the examiner does
not support such a contention, since Onohara is specifically
directed to polymers used to form crosslinked molded articles,
not crosslinked adhesives. See the translation of this reference
at page 4. While it may be true, as apparently alleged by the
examiner, that in some instances, random and block copolymers may
be used for the same purpose, clearly, the examiner has failed to
provide objective evidence that this is the case with respect to
the herein claimed blocked copolymer adhesive components. The
examiner's stated rejection based on Blizzard is further
undermined by the fact that Blizzard fails to disclose
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007