Appeal No. 1998-3242
Application No. 08/700,133
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bagga in view of Kamio and further in
view of Lee or Vachon.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
It is the examiner’s basic position that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to modify the adhesive composition of
Bagga so as to result in an adhesive of the type defined by
appealed independent claim 1 in view of the Kamio, Lee and Vachon
references. However, the requisite modification would involve
selecting and combining from Bagga’s extensive disclosure a
particular type of epoxy resin and a particular type of latent
curing agent, namely, a dihydrazide compound. This modification
would further require using a dihydrazide compound in an amount
(i.e., about 42-100 parts) which considerably exceeds the highest
amount expressly disclosed by patentee (i.e., 30 parts; see lines
65-68 in column 8). In addition, Bagga’s adhesive composition
would have to be modified in such a way as to be curable at the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007