Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Daughenbaugh
for reasons given above.
We now address independent claim 19.
Claim 19 is also directed to a hot melt adhesive formulation
comprising two different ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers of different
polarity and melt flow indices. Like claim 1, claim 19 does not specifically
state ranges for what constitutes low or high polar (i.e., vinyl) content for
each ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. We refer to the earlier discussion on
our interpretation of these terms in view of the Specification.
Claim 19 additionally recites the high polar content ethylene
copolymer as having a “low melt flow index” and the low polar content
ethylene copolymer as having a “high melt flow index.” On this record,
neither the Answer nor the final Office action contains any express
interpretation of the claimed limitations “low melt flow index” and “high
melt flow index.”
We again turn to the Specification for the meaning of the terms “low
melt flow index” and “high melt flow index” . We note that Appellants
again only describe what is meant by low melt flow index and high melt
flow index with respect to their “particularly preferred adhesive”
(Specification para. bridging 2 and 3). Specifically, with respect to the
“particularly preferred adhesive,” an ethylene copolymer having a low melt
flow index is disclosed as an ethylene vinyl acetate with a melt flow index of
“less than about 400 grams/10 minutes” (Specification 5). An ethylene
copolymer having a high melt flow index is disclosed as an ethylene vinyl
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013