Appeal No. 2006-0994
Application No. 09/898,969
results of improving the bonding to metals, which is a similar environment to the
Everaerts adhesive (De Santis, col. 4, l. 75-col. 5, l. 2).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellant’s
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 11-14 and 18 under _ 103(a) over Everaerts in view
of Ragland and De Santis.
B. The Remaining Rejections
The remaining rejections on appeal are all based on Everaerts, Ragland and De
Santis as discussed above and in the Answer, further adding the tertiary references to
Ko and/or Mazurek (Answer, pages 6-7). Appellant does not present any additional
arguments concerning these remaining rejections on appeal (Brief, pages 6-8).
Accordingly, we adopt our remarks from above, as well as the findings and conclusions
of law found in the Answer, and also affirm these rejections.
C. Summary
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007