Appeal No. 2001-0851
Application No. 09/042,735
examiner’s viewpoint. That is, the disclosure, for example, on
page 3 of the subject specification clarifies the alleged
indefiniteness perceived by the examiner by revealing that the
weight and polyol recitations in this dependent claim relate to
part A of parent independent claim 19.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
Section 112, second paragraph rejection of all appealed claims.
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection
of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over Abraham in view
of Gruenewaelder. Even assuming that it would have been obvious
to combine the teachings of these references in the manner
proposed by the examiner, the adhesive resulting from this
combination would fail to possess the initial viscosity
characteristic required by each of the independent claims on
appeal. This is because, as correctly argued by the appellant,
the applied references contain no teaching or suggestion of the
here claimed viscosity characteristic.
In response to the appellant’s argument, the examiner
contends that “the use of the less viscous polyether polyol
reactant [of Gruenewaelder] would have been expected to reduce
the viscosity of the adhesive composition to levels which meet
those claimed” and that “one of ordinary skill would have been
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007