Appeal No. 2002-2317 Application No. 09/025,607 technical reasoning which shows that any of the EP ‘082 hot melt adhesives is a pressure sensitive adhesive, or explained how EP ‘082 would have fairly suggested a hot melt pressure sensitive adhesive to one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, the examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention claimed in the appellants’ claim 1 over EP ‘082. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-22, 24, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over EP ‘082. Claims 45-48 The appellants state that claims 45 and 46 stand or fall together, as do claims 47 and 48 (brief, page 10). We therefore limit our discussion to the independent claim in each group, i.e., claims 45 and 47. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997). Claim 45 EP ‘082 discloses a method for producing a hot-melt adhesive having excellent adhesion (page 8), comprising providing a basic polymer or copolymer, which reasonably appears to be a hot-melt 14Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007