Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and was not specifically argued.
Therefore, it stands or falls with claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Daughenbaugh
for reasons given above.
Regarding claim 6,1 Appellants argue that “[n]either Watanabe [n]or
Daughenbaugh suggest[s] a hot melt adhesive comprising a terpene phenol
tackifier having a softening point . . . of less than about 115 oC, as claimed
by applicants” (Br. para. bridging 7 and 8).
As correctly indicated by the Examiner, Daughenbaugh (col. 1,
ll. 11-13) “discloses . . . terpene phenol tackifiers hav[ing] softening points
between 60 [sic, 69] and 130oC” (Answer 5). This softening point
temperature range overlaps Appellants’ claim 6 softening point temperature
range “of less than about 115oC.”
Thus, we disagree with Appellants’ aforenoted 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 . . . terpene
phenol tackifier[s] having softening points between 60 [sic, 69]-130 [e.g.,
less than 115] oC as shown for example by Daughenbaugh” for the reasons
given above and by the Examiner (Answer 5).
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and was not specifically argued.
Therefore, it stands or falls with claim 6.
1 We note that claim 6 is in conflict with claim 5, from which claim 6
depends, and thus, not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). This conflict
should be resolved in any further prosecution that may occur.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013