Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 7
Application No. 10/858,576
so as to be reasonably guaranteed as attainable through
practicing the invention as broadly claimed.
Also, appellants (brief, page 6) have not shown that the
comparison Example 1, which is seemingly argued as being
equivalent to the adhesive of the applied references and the
control of the test comparisons Tables 1-5 (specification, pages
10-13) were prepared under conditions that fairly represents the
closest prior art. Also, it is not clear how a fair comparison
can be made considering the numerous unfixed variables involved
in those tests, such as differences in the adhesive formulation
monomers and emulsifier composition, as well as reaction
techniques and conditions as pointed out by the examiner in the
answer (paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8) and as further made
evident by a review of the specification Examples.
Indeed, at page 13 of the specification, it is stated that:
The preferred example shows some differentiation from
the latex blend and is more like the PSA control. As
in Table 3, addition of a tackifying resin to the 20%
blend will improve peel on LDPE and corrugated, Table
5. In fact, the performance of the example 2 latex
compares favorably with both the tackified blend and a
tackified general purpose commercial label adhesive,
Table 5.
Consequently, we are not satisfied that appellants have
satisfied the burden of establishing that the evidence of record
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007