Appeal 2006-1305
Application 10/236,270
acetate with a melt flow index of “greater than about 400 grams/10 minutes”
(id.).
We find that the broad language of independent claim 19 also
encompasses the preferred hot melt adhesive formulations and, therefore, in
view of the Specification, we interpret the claim 19 limitation of an ethylene
copolymer having a “low melt flow index” as encompassing an ethylene
vinyl acetate with a melt flow index of “less than about 400 grams/10
minutes.” In addition, we interpret the claim 19 limitation of an ethylene
copolymer having a “high melt flow index” as encompassing an ethylene
vinyl acetate with a melt flow index of “greater than about 400 grams/10
minutes.” This interpretation is clearly reasonable in light of the
Specification.
Our interpretation above results in claim 19 being of the same breadth
as independent claim 1. Thus, we refer to our discussion of the rejection
above as applied to independent claim 1. However, if independent claim 19
is interpreted more broadly than independent claim 1, then the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over Watanabe in view of Daughenbaugh is even
more well founded with respect to independent claim 19.
Since Appellants’ arguments regarding this combination of references
have been found unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 19, as well as of dependent claim 20,
which was not separately argued.
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013