Appeal 2007-1174
Application 11/001244
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Gleave US 4,102,945 Jul. 25, 1978
Koga US 4,713,405 Dec. 15, 1987
Nishino US 5,739,205 Apr. 14, 1998
O’Connor US 6,475,331 B1 Nov. 05, 2002
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
failure to provide enablement for the scope of the claims (Answer 3).1
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nishino in view of Gleave, O’Connor, and Koga (Answer 3).
Appellant contends that only routine, not undue, experimentation is
needed to determine if the fixture time between any two substrates is within
the scope of the claims (less than about 70 seconds) (Br. 7).
Appellant contends that the claimed language “consisting essentially
of” eliminates the need for an accelerator while all of the applied prior art
includes an accelerator (Br. 10-12 and 15; Reply Br. 2-4).
Appellant contends that Nishino teaches that difficulties are
encountered if the specific disclosed thickeners are not used, and thus there
is no motivation to substitute the thickener of Gleave (Br. 14).
Appellant contends that unexpected results have been shown (Br. 16-
17).
1 We refer to and cite from the Examiner’s Answer dated Nov. 2, 2006. We
note that the rejection of claims 1-8 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 for lack of written description has been withdrawn by the Examiner
(Answer 2, ¶ (6)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013