Appeal No. 1997-3563 Page 3
Application No. 08/321,460
(C) admixing said isocyanate component and said catalyzed
component to form said curable composition;
(D) applying said curable adhesive composition to a
bondline intermediate said adherends; and
(E) bonding said adherends at said bondline by heating
said curable adhesive composition above said threshold
temperature to effect its curing by activating said amine or
amine-like catalyst and said complexed metal catalyst.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Chang 4,598,103 Jul. 01,
1986
Dammann et al. (Dammann) 4,788,083 Nov.
28, 1988
Chung 5,002,806 Mar. 26,
1991
Claims 33-49, 52, 53 and 56-64 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of
Dammann and Chang.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007