Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 4
Application No. 10/858,576
However, we agree with the examiner that Lu and Yang each
disclose and/or suggest a pressure-sensitive adhesive that
reasonably appear to be embraced by products falling within the
scope of representative claim 1 for reasons substantially as set
forth at pages 3 through 7 of the answer. In this regard, Lu
(see, e.g., column 2, line 65 through column 5, line 9 and
Examples 2 and 4-6) teaches a latex pressure-sensitive adhesive
formed via emulsion polymerization using, inter alia, an alkyl
acrylate monomer, such as 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, and a
polystyrene as part of the reactant mixture. Similarly, Yang
(column 2, line 50 through column 5, line 5) discloses latex
pressure-sensitive adhesives prepared from a reaction mixture of
alkyl acrylate monomers of the claimed type in the presence of a
styrene-containing resin. Given the above and for reasons stated
in the answer, we agree with the examiner’s anticipation and
obviousness determinations.
Starting with the examiner’s obviousness rejection
alternative, we note that appellants (brief, pages 5-7) do not
contest the examiner’s determination that the applied teachings
of Lu or Yang establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007