Appeal No. 2005-2508
Application No. 09/874,314
examiner established a reasonable expectation of success (Brief,
pages 6, 8 and 11). Appellants further argue that the examiner
has not provided any specific factual evidence to conclude that
one of ordinary skill is aware that the wide variety of
tackifiers are suitable for being incorporated into rubber based
pressure sensitive adhesives (Reply Brief, page 4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Contrary to
appellants’ argument, one of ordinary skill in this art would
have been well aware of appropriate tackifiers for use with
rubber-based pressure-sensitive adhesives.1 This is evidenced by
both Dobashi and EP ‘585. Dobashi teaches that the tackifier for
rubber-based PSA compositions is preferably a terpene resin or
terpene-phenol resin, including hydrogenated resins (col. 4, l.
63-col. 5, l. 4). Furthermore, Dobashi teaches that tackifiers
may include “aliphatic, aromatic or allcyclic [sic, alicyclic]
petroleum resins” including those modified by hydrogenation (col.
9, ll. 35-44), which tackifiers generically include the claimed
“hydrogenated aliphatic/aromatic copolymer petroleum resins” (see
1
1We note that appellants disclose that incorporation of a
tackifier is usually effective in improving adhesive strength
and, in addition to the claimed copolymer, “[o]ne or more
appropriate tackifiers known for use in pressure-sensitive
adhesives may be used” (specification, page 10, last paragraph,
italics added).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007