Appeal 2006-2307
Application 10/370,686
To the extent that Appellant may be arguing that the claimed
invention is attended by unexpected results in arguing against the
obviousness rejection, we note that the limited examples furnished in
Appellant’s specification are considerably narrower in scope than
representative claim 20. In this regard, appellant bears the burden of
establishing unexpected results for the claimed subject matter. Moreover,
we observe that claim 20 employs open comprising language and is not
limited to the use of any particular amount of a high Tg polymer having an
average particle size less than 500 nm, nor to the use of any particular high
Tg polymer or aqueous pressure sensitive adhesive polymer. Also,
Appellant has not compared the claimed invention to the closest prior art
(Comparative Example 6) of JP05-271645. Finally Appellant has not fairly
established that any of the results accompanying the claimed invention
would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Consequently, on this record, we affirm the Examiner’s
anticipation/obviousness rejection over JP05-271645.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-23 over JP05-271645 and Rosenski.
Appellant presents substantially the same arguments against this
rejection as were presented against the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
over JP05-271645 alone. Appellant does not argue the rejected claims
separately. Thus, we select claim 20 as the representative claim. Because we
find that JP05-271645 furnishes sufficient evidence to establish the
obviousness of the claim 20 subject matter, we shall also affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 and 23 over the combined teachings of
JP05-271645 and Rosenski for the reasons stated above and in the Answer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007