Appeal No. 1998-3242
Application No. 08/700,133
here claimed range of about 100-125BC as opposed to patentee’s
curability range of 180-200BC (see the sentence bridging columns
1 and 2). Finally, the modified adhesive composition of Bagga
would have to be capable, upon cure, of providing a flexible and
reworkable epoxy bond as required by the independent claim on
appeal.
It is apparent to us that the applied prior art does not
support a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to all of
the aforenoted modifications to Bagga’s adhesive composition
which would be required in order to obtain an adhesive
encompassed by appealed claim 1. For example, we agree with the
appellants that Kamio would not have suggested modifying the
Bagga composition so as to include a latent curing agent in the
amount here claimed. As correctly argued by the appellants, the
maximum amount of latent hardener or curing agent used by Kamio
is 30 parts (e.g., see lines 56-60 in column 2) in contrast to
the minimum amount of about 42 parts defined by the independent
claim before us. We understand that Kamio further discloses that
his adhesive includes an additional hardener, such as a hydrazide
compound, in an amount up to 50 parts by weight (e.g., see lines
53-65 in column 1). However, this additional hardener is not
described as a latent hardener or curing agent and indeed is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007