Appeal No. 1997-3870
Application No. 08/421,055
initially advanced to no further than B-stage (which is held/seen
to indicate/provide for the occurrence of at least some flow at
elevated temperature, prior to the attainment of full (ie [sic]
C-stage) cure).” Answer, page 7. However, the examiner fails to
cite any evidence or reasoning to support this last finding.
Accordingly, we determine that Wagner fails to disclose or
suggest a melt-flowable composition as required by claim 6 on
appeal. Furthermore, we agree with appellants that the adhesive
of Wagner could not be employed for its intended use if the
adhesive composition was melt-flowable (Brief, page 9; see
Wagner, col. 5, ll. 4-22 and Figure 7).
Pletcher, Schappert and Kan have been applied by the
examiner to show the conventionality of various features recited
in dependent claims (Answer, pages 5-6). Accordingly, these
secondary references do not remedy the deficiency in Wagner as
discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not provided a factual basis to show that every limitation of
the claims is disclosed or taught by Wagner. Thus the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be sustained. See In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly,
we determine that the examiner has not provided a factual basis
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007