Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
ll. 40-45. Like Daughenbaugh’s hot melt adhesives, Watanabe’s hot melt
adhesives comprise ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers (Translation 3) and
may include a terpene tackifier (Translation 11). Based on this, a person
with ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
success in using the tackifier of Daughenbaugh in the composition of
Watanabe. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988). On this record, Appellants have provided no
evidence to support their position that using the tackifiers of Daughenbaugh
in Watanabe’s hot melt adhesives containing ethylene-vinyl acetate
copolymers would affect the characteristics of Watanabe’s adhesives such
that the proposed combination would be unsuccessful.
Thus, based on the combined teachings of Watanabe and
Daughenbaugh, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with
the Examiner’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use . . . the
tackifier [of Daughenbaugh] . . . in the compositions taught by Watanabe”
for the reasons given above and by the Examiner (Answer 5).
Dependent claims 3, 8, 9, and 18, which ultimately depend from
independent claim 1, were not separately argued in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, they stand or fall with
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 18
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe in view of
Daughenbaugh for the reasons given above.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013