Appeal No. 2001-0851
Application No. 09/042,735
able to tailor the desired initial viscosity of the adhesive
[resulting from the aforementioned combination of Abraham and
Gruenewaelder] through careful selection of polyols and
prepolymers of suitable viscosity” (answer, page 7; emphasis
added). The aforequoted contentions do not establish obviousness
regarding the viscosity limitation claimed by the appellant.
Relative to such an obviousness conclusion, the examiner’s
contentions are deficient in a number of respects.
In the first place, the examiner’s contention that using
Gruenewaelder’s less viscous polyether polyol in Abraham’s
adhesive composition would reduce the viscosity to levels “which
meet those claimed” is completely unsupported by the applied
reference evidence. While some degree of viscosity reduction
might have been expected, there is absolutely no basis in fact on
the record before us for concluding that viscosity would have
been reduced to the here claimed levels. Plainly, this
contention is based on conjecture, speculation or assumption
rather than fact, and it is well settled that a Section 103
rejection must rest on a factual basis rather than conjecture,
speculation or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007