Appeal No. 2000-0346
Application No. 08/868,353
relates to a method for the preparation of (1) a film laminating adhesive composition of
the type previously mentioned and (2) a bonded laminate obtained in using such a
composition. This appealed subject matter is adequately illustrated by claims 1 and 32
which read as follows:
1. A film laminating adhesive composition comprising a stable blend of:
a) at least one aqueous N-methylol-based polyacrylic dispersion; and
b) at least one polyalkyleneimine.
32. A film laminating adhesive composition for preparing bonded laminates,
said bonded laminates prepared by a method comprising the steps of:
a) coating a first flexible film with the adhesive according to Claim 21;
b) heating the coated flexible film to form a dried coated substrate; then
c) applying onto said substrate a second flexible film using heat and
pressure.
The references set forth below are relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness:1
De Long 4,082,882 Apr. 04, 1978
1On page 6 of the answer, the examiner refers to prior art (i.e., “(1) the Hart et al.
reference cited and supplied by appellant in his Information Disclosure Statement . . . and (2)
page 1, lines 16-17 of appellant[’]s specification”) in support of his obviousness conclusion but
which has not been included in his statement of the rejection. Where a reference is relied on to
support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, that reference should be positively included
in the statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970) as well as the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section 706.02 (j)
(August 2001). We have not considered the aforementioned prior art in our assessment of the
examiner’s rejection since this prior art is not included in his statement of rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007