Appeal No. 1998-2834
Application 08/659,858
adhesive having a rheology (tan *) that resides inside the
quadrangle as claimed because appellants’ specification on
page 12 indicates that three adhesives having a tan * greater
than 0.6 at a frequency of 100 to 1000 radians per second, as
taught by Kenney, were tested and found to be unsatisfactory.
This argument is not persuasive for at least two reasons.
First, the argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 18
because that claim does not preclude adhesives having a tan *
greater than 0.6 at a frequency of 100 to 1000 radians per
second. Second, the argument fails to address the
circumstance that Kenney discloses adhesives having, for
example, tan *s at other frequencies that are well within the
quadrangle as claimed.4
In light of the foregoing, the standing § 103 rejection
of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Kao KK in view of
Kenney is sustained. In that dependent claims 23-25 and 27
have not been
4 For example, see Kenney’s Table VIII for an adhesive
having a tan * of 0.5 to 0.6 at a frequency of 10 radians per
second.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007