Appeal No. 1998-3087
Application 08/399,864
elongation and excellent aging characteristics (col. 1, lines 32-
35). The examiner points out (answer, page 5) that Coolbaugh
teaches that the copolymers can contain a tackifier (col. 20,
lines 20-21), but has not established that an elastomeric
vulcanizate containing a tackifier necessarily is an adhesive, or
that a disclosure of such a vulcanizate would have fairly
suggested an adhesive to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Consequently, the examiner has not adequately explained why
Coolbaugh and Erickson, which discloses an adhesive (col. 1,
lines 49-51), are combinable.
For the above reasons, we hold that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention recited in claims 1, 2, 9-16, 19, 20
and 23 over Coolbaugh in view of Short, Pritchett, Richards
and/or Handlin, and further in view of Erickson.
Claim 21
Appellants do not challenge the rejection of claim 21 over
Pritchett (brief, pages 3 and 5). For this reason and because
the above combination of references includes Pritchett, we affirm
the rejection of claim 21 over Coolbaugh in view of Short,
Pritchett, Richards and/or Handlin, and further in view of
Erickson.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007