Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
The Examiner also notes that “Watanabe discloses the use of
(aromatic) terpene tackifiers” (id.) but “is silent as to the use of any
particular terpene tackifier, it being noted Watanabe is not limited to any
particular tackifier” (id.).
The Examiner relies on the reference to Daughenbaugh to meet the
claimed terpene phenol tackifier (id.). Daughenbaugh “relates to novel
terpolymers which are particularly adapted for use as tackifiers in adhesive
compositions” (col. 1, ll. 6-8). Daughenbaugh specifically teaches the use of
a vinyl aromatic/terpene/phenol terpolymer as a tackifier for adhesive
compositions (Abstract), including hot melt adhesive compositions
comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers (col. 3, ll. 40-45). Thus, the
Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to use
as the tackifier . . ., in the compositions taught by
Watanabe any well known terpene tackifier such
as a terpene phenol tackifier . . . as shown for
example by Daughenbaugh for similar use in
ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer hot melt
adhesives as only the expected results would be
achieved. [Answer 5.]
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no disclosure [in Watanabe] that the
two EVAs be different from one another in terms of polar content and in
terms of melt flow index” (Br. 5).
The Examiner responds that “[t]he examples of Watanabe specifically
disclose EVAl and EVA2 as different wherein the polar content of EVAl is
less than that of EVA2 and the melt flow index of EVAl is larger than that of
EVA2” (Answer 8).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013