Appeal No. 1998-1754
Application 08/555,918
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected as being unpatentable for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Henry in view of Dales.
Claim 4 stands rejected as being unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 over Henry in view of Dales and Keskkula.
Claim 6 stands rejected as being unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 over Henry in view of Dales and Hadgraft.
Claim 8 stands rejected as being unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '
103 over Henry in view of Dales and Kunishige.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in appellants' brief and below, we will reverse each of the
above-noted rejections.
It is not disputed that the Henry reference lacks the use of boric acid in the disclosed
laminating adhesive. (Brief, page 9, Office action mailed September 27, 1996, page 5).
The examiner relies upon the Dales reference for the use of boric acid as a gelling agent.
(Office action mailed September 27, 1996, pages 5-6).
Appellants argue that Dales’ neoprene dispersion (to which Dales adds the boric
acid) is used for forming molded articles, and not for use in an adhesive. (Brief, pages 9-
10). Appellants further state that there is no basis for the examiner's conclusion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize, from a reading of Dales, that one could improve
the initial adhesion force properties of a dispersion comprising an acrylic acid ester
copolymer and a colloidal chloroprene polymerisate, by adding boric acid to the
dispersion. (Brief, page 11).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007