Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments since Watanabe expressly
discloses “discover[ing] that the cold-bonding resistance and the operability
can be made favorable by combining . . . [an] ethylene – vinyl acetate
copolymer with another ethylene - acetate copolymer that has a different
melt index and a different vinyl acetate content” (Translation 5). In
addition, as noted by our discussion above, Watanabe’s Examples 1
through 3 (Translation 18) clearly teach or would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer component
of the hot melt adhesive composition comprises two different ethylene-vinyl
acetate copolymers with a first ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer having a
vinyl acetate content lower than the vinyl acetate content of the second
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the first ethylene-vinyl acetate
copolymer having a melt flow index higher than the melt flow index of the
second ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. Thus, we concur with the
Examiner’s finding that Examples 1 through 3 of Watanabe teach “forming a
hot melt adhesive having high heat and cold resistance from a composition
comprising [a first ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer] EVAl , [a second
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer] EVA2, tackifier, and resin [sic, wax]
wherein EVAl has a low polar content and high melt flow index as it relates
to EVA2” (Answer 5).
Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument and, in view
of Watanabe’s disclosure, including Examples 1 through 3, agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine/optimize the
amounts of each component as a function of achieving the desired heat and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013