Appeal No. 2006-1931
Application No. 10/305,201
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all
of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner=s ' 103 rejection of claims 16 to
18 and 21 to 32 is well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). However, we reverse the rejection of claims 19, 20, 33, 34, and 43. Our reasons
follow.
THE REJECTION OVER EP '467
The Examiner asserts the EP '467 reference discloses aqueous adhesives and a method of
bonding substrates derived from quartz sand, limestone and textile. (Page 12, example 7). The
adhesive comprises the polycondensation reaction product of the fatty acid of sunflower oil and
pentaerythriol, which has a molecular weight from 1000 to 10,000. (Page 5, lines 3-5).
According to Appellants= specification, page 8, an example of a fatty compound corresponding
to component (A) includes fats and oils in native form, i.e., sunflower oil. The specification also
discloses the reaction of components (A) and (B) results in the polymer formation by
polycondensation reaction and condensation reaction. (Page 10). Thus, it reasonably appears
the subject matter of claim 16 is rendered prima facie obvious over the teaching of EP '467. 5
Appellants argue the composition of EP '467 is useful as a tackifying agent for use with
other adhesives and there is no teaching or suggestion that the reaction product disclosed therein
has any adhesive properties. (Brief, pp. 5 and 6). We do not agree. First, Appellants have not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007