Appeal No. 1999-1903
Application No. 08/781,055
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellants that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we shall reverse the rejection at issue.
Initially, we note that appellants’ composite article, as claimed, is composed of
“active particulate”, which we interpret to mean “particulate materials that interact with
fluids by sorbing (adsorbing or absorbing) components from the fluids” as defined in
appellants’ specification (page 1, ll. 13-15). Also, the microparticulate polymer component
of appellants’ claimed composite article has “pressure-sensitive adhesive” properties
which, according to appellants’ specification (page 10, ll. 13-19), means that the polymeric
microparticulate material has:
. . . sufficient inherent tack, sufficient loss modulus, and sufficiently low glass
transition temperature, to enable the polymer to form a firm bond with a
substrate upon contact under light pressure, e.g., finger pressure, at the
temperature of use (e.g., room temperature (23°C)), and that can be made in
the form of microparticulates. The polymer (dry) requires no activation by
water, solvent, or heat in order for it to form such a bond.
Bearing these definitions in mind, we agree with appellants that, first of all, the
Braun disclosure, taken alone, is devoid of any meaningful guidance or motivation to select
a PSA polymer as a particulate binder material from among the vast multitude of materials
encompassed by Braun’s generic disclosure of “thermoplastic and thermosetting
materials.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007