Ex Parte HANSEN et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2001-2470                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/890,134                                                  

          essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer and those                  
          reasons set forth below.                                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               The examiner finds that Puletti discloses hot melt adhesive            
          formulations based on A-B-A type block copolymers, where the                
          terminal (end) blocks of the copolymer are in a concentration of            
          86 to 14% and the molecular weights of these terminal blocks are            
          preferably between 15,000 and 100,000 (Answer, page 3).  The                
          examiner also finds that the reference prefers the elastomeric              
          block copolymers be unhydrogenated with butadiene and isoprene              
          midblocks (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4).  The examiner             
          notes that the trademark copolymers identified by Puletti are the           
          same block copolymers specified by appellants in some of the                
          examples (id., citing Kraton 1650 and composition D in Table 1 of           
          the specification).  The examiner further finds that Puletti                
          teaches the use of tackifying resins which include midblock                 
          compatible resins and oils in varying amounts (Answer, page 4,              
          with citations to Puletti).                                                 
               The examiner thus finds that the difference between the                
          claimed subject matter and the disclosure of Puletti is that the            
          claimed weight ratio of midblock compatible resin to oil (1.5:1             
          to 3.5:1) is “not expressly and specifically cited within the               
          patent.”  Answer, page 4.  However, the examiner concludes that             
          this weight ratio is prima facie obvious since ratios of midblock           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007