Appeal No. 1997-3870
Application No. 08/421,055
legal conclusion. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 14, 15 and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is reversed.
B. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 6 on appeal requires that a melt-flowable composition
contacts the surface of the substrate and, upon heating, flows
over and substantially covers a desired area of said surface to
adhere the article to said surface (see claim 6, parts (a) and
(b)). The sole or primary reference in every rejection advanced
by the examiner is Wagner, who teaches a thermoplastic adhesive
with a support layer of polyurethane where the dried nitrile
phenolic adhesive composition “will soften to cause adhesion”
when heat is applied (Wagner, abstract, col. 1, ll. 13-17).
Therefore Wagner fails to disclose or teach the claimed
limitation that the melt-flowable composition upon heating flows
over and substantially covers the surface of the substrate.
The examiner recognizes that Wagner only discloses “a heat
softenable adhesive” (Answer, page 5). In response to
appellants’ argument that Wagner merely discloses a heat
softenable adhesive that does not flow and wet the surface
(Brief, pages 8-9), the examiner finds that “the thermosetting
adhesive employed by these patentees [Wagner] is held/seen to be
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007