Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this principle in mind,
we consider that an artisan would understand the “high molecular
weight” components of appealed claim 2 to have a viscosity within
the range called for in Paul’s claim 2 for these components based
on the definition of “high molecular weight rubber” expressly set
forth in appellants’ specification at page 14, lines 8-10.6
Concerning (2), it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a rubber copolymer
corresponding to that called for in Paul’s claim 2 in the
adhesive of appealed claim 2 based on the teaching of Zacharias
PCT ‘238 at page 9, lines 21-28, that the preferred rubber based
adhesive thereof comprises block copolymers of styrene-butadiene-
styrene, styrene-isoprene-styrene, styrene-ethyleneproplyene-
styrene, or styrene-ethylenebutylene-styrene.
It follows from the above that the subject matter of claims
1 and 2 of Paul and the subject matter of appealed claims 1, 2,
4-6 and 8-12 are the same patentable invention within the meaning
of 37 CFR § 1.601(n). Accordingly 37 CFR § 1.131 is not
6Page 14, lines 8-10, read as follows:
As used herein, the term “high molecular weight
rubbers” are those with a viscosity at 25° C. of above
1,000 centipoise in toluene at a concentration of 20%
by weight.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007